Organization behavior

Japanese organizational

culture

535

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 6, 2000, pp. 535-559.

# MCB University Press, 0268-3946

Received September 1999 Revised December 1999 Accepted January 2000

Perceptions of Japanese organizational culture Employees in non-unionized

Japanese-owned and unionized US-owned automobile plants

Thomas Li-Ping Tang Department of Management and Marketing, Middle Tennessee State

University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

Jwa K. Kim and Debra Ann O'Donald Department of Psychology, Middle Tennessee State University,

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

Keywords Japanese management styles, Motor industry, Trade unions, USA

Abstract Examines the Japanese management philosophy in organizations, and develops a 15- item, four-factor (family orientation and loyalty, open communication, team approach, and manager knowledge) Japanese organizational culture scale (JOCS). Investigates the differences in JOCS and other work-related variables between 156 non-unionized employees of one Japanese- owned automobile plant and 144 unionized employees of one US-owned automobile plant in the USA. There were no differences in income and education. Employees in the Japanese-owned plant had higher scores for family orientation and loyalty, open communication, team approach, manager knowledge, organizational commitment, organization-based self-esteem, organizational instrumentality, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction than those in the US-owned plant. Results are discussed in light of organizational culture and enhancing quality and productivity in the global competitive market.

Henry Ford began production of the original Model A in 1903. By the spring of 1914, Ford was actually turning out two products at his Highland Park factory: Model Ts and a continuous stream of enlightened industrial pilgrims. In the early 1980s, a new pilgrimage route emerged, with the destination now being Japan instead of Detroit. Just as Henry Ford's mass production methods diffused throughout the world in the early part of this century, the Japanese production method (lean production) and management philosophy have begun to diffuse (Davenport and Tang, 1996; Rhody and Tang, 1995; Womack et al., 1990). This diffusion is occurring in two ways: The Japanese are building plants in the USA, and the US mass-producers are adopting these methods on their own.

Honda made the Japanese automobile industry's first serious foreign investment with its Marysville, Ohio, complex that began assembly in 1982. Nissan, Toyota and Mazda soon followed. A total of 11 Japanese transplants and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com

The authors would like to thank the Faculty Research and Creative Activity Program of Middle Tennessee State University, Dean Donald Curry, Joseph Kieltyka and Bruno Kieltyka for their support and encouragement for this research project.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

536

joint ventures between Japanese and US manufacturers have been in operation. Today, many US citizens are working for Japanese-owned companies in the USA. These Japanese transplants assemble 1.4 million cars annually on the US mainland. This will account for slightly more than 20 percent of automobile assemblies in North America by the end of the decade (Womack et al., 1990).

The major purpose of this study is to develop the Japanese organizational culture scale (JOCS) based on theory and research suggested in the literature. We will examine the factor structures, reliability, and the nomological network (construct validity) of JOCS, and differences in JOCS and other work-related variables between employees of the Japanese-owned and the US-owned automobile plants in the USA. In the following paragraphs, the concept of organizational culture and the major variables related to Japanese management style will be reviewed.

Organizational culture The concept of organizational culture has its roots in cultural anthropology and was alluded to as early as the Hawthorne Studies in the 1920s. Many definitions of organizational culture have been proposed in the literature, but the common underlying theme of these definitions is based on an organization's underlying values, beliefs, and their shared philosophy (Barney, 1986; Corbett, 1986; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 1990; 1996; Shockley-Zalabak and Morley, 1989).

Schein (1990) suggested that organizational culture has three levels:

(1) artifacts (e.g. personal enactment, ceremonies and rites, stories, rituals, and symbols);

(2) values (i.e. consciously articulated beliefs); and

(3) basic underlying assumptions (i.e. the deepest, unconscious, and most fundamental beliefs).

Further, culture is defined as:

. . . the pattern of basic assumptions that the group has invented, discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration (Schein, 1986, p. 30).

Culture also influences how the members of the group understand and respond to their environment (Schein, 1996). In the early 1980s, many researchers and scholars have tried to use the concept of culture to explain why US companies do not perform as well as their Japanese counterparts (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Tang et al. (1987; 1989; 1991; 1993) found that quality circle members will develop different work-related behaviors and performances due to different types of `̀ business environment, values'', and `̀ culture'' in the organization (see Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Schein, 1986).

There are many different measures of organizational culture, including (to name but a few):

Japanese organizational

culture

537

. the organizational beliefs questionnaire (OBQ) developed by Sashkin (1984);

. the corporate culture survey (CCS) by Glaser (1983);

. the organizational culture inventory (OCI) by Cooke and Lafferty (1989);

. the culture gap survey (CGS) by Kilman and Saxton (1983).

Recently, Xenikou and Furnham (1996) examined the factor structure of the 30 subscales of these four measures of organizational culture (i.e. OCI, CGS, OBQ, and CCS) and identified five factors of organizational culture:

(1) openness to change in a cooperative culture;

(2) task-oriented organizational growth;

(3) the human factor in a bureaucratic culture;

(4) negativism and resistance to new ideas; and

(5) positive social relations in the workplace.

Cooke and Rousseau (1988) believed that the OCI, an instrument designed for both cross-sectional organizational research and data-based cultural change programs, profiles the culture of organizations in terms of behavioral norms and expectations. They believe that it is possible to measure culture quantitatively with respect to these norms and expectations. We assert that these culture-related inventories and measures in the literature (e.g. Cooke and Rousseau, 1988; Xenikou and Furnham, 1996) do not tap on the Japanese management philosophy in organizations, the focus of the present study.

Culture is the bedrock of an organization. Even if a company does not deliberately and consciously indoctrinate its new employees, its important beliefs, values, and ways of doing things will, in any case, powerfully socialize anyone who remains in the organization. Organizational culture can be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Firms with strong cultures are pointed out as examples of strong management.

Benchmarking, the mechanism for modifying the cultures of other firms to approximate closely the cultures of successful firms, has been widely discussed and applied. Benchmarking became a commonly-used TQM technique only recently. Xerox is generally credited with the first use of benchmarking by a US company. In 1979, a team of Xerox line managers went to Japan to study the productivity of Japanese photocopier manufacturers. The Xerox team found that Japanese companies could build higher-quality machines for substantially less than Xerox. These efforts are seen not only as ways of improving employee morale and quality of work life, but also vital for improving a firm's financial performance (Barney, 1986). Now many other companies are following suit in pursuing benchmarking as a means of enhancing quality and productivity (Main, 1992).

World trade today is moving toward the triad market with three regional free-trade blocs: Asia, North America, and Western Europe. Owing to global

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

538

competition, there is a growing need to manage human resources effectively across borders (Tang et al., 2000). We trust that our understanding of Japanese organizational culture will help researchers and managers manage quality and productivity effectively and efficiently in the global market.

With so many US employees working for Japanese companies in today's society, culture is an important variable to study. Very little research has investigated organizational culture relating to the Japanese management philosophy and examined the differences of these shared cultural beliefs and values between Japanese transplant and traditional US-owned plant. This study aims to fill the void.

Japanese management philosophy The Japanese management philosophy is a direct outgrowth of their culture. This Japanese philosophy is evident in several basic principles in which they believe: trust employees, build employee loyalty to the company, invest in training, treat employees as resources, recognize employee accomplishments, decentralize decision making, and employ consensual decision making (Cole, 1980; Harper, 1988; Johnson and Ouchi, 1974). In fact, the Japanese have taken many of these basic ideas developed in the US behavioral sciences and acted to institutionalize them in daily practice (Cole, 1980). This may be possible due to the high level of consistency between the Japanese culture and the way corporations operate. The key concepts will be discussed below.

Family orientation and loyalty The USA is considered as an individualistic Western society characterized by an emphasis on individual identity, individual goals, and individual welfare (Hofstede, 1983; Triandis et al., 1985). On the other hand, Japan generally represents a collectivist culture that emphasizes membership within groups or communities and considers group welfare over one's own individual welfare. Employees in Japanese companies will have a strong sense of loyalty and dedication to the organization.

The Japanese have a very people-oriented way of viewing their employees. They have concerns for the total individual and view each worker as a person rather than an employee (Bowman, 1984; Harper, 1988; Hatvany and Pucik, 1981; Johnson and Ouchi, 1974). Active, observable concern for each and every employee is expressed by supervisory personnel (Clark, 1979; Rohlen, 1974).

Many chief executives of major Japanese companies frequently describe the firm as a `̀ family'' (Hatvany and Pucik, 1981). Among the norms of family life, `̀ wa'' (harmony) is the most often emphasized component in company philosophy. The commitment of the `̀ family'' to the employee is expressed in company policies of avoiding layoffs and providing the employee with a wide range of supplementary benefits.

In a personal interview, Joe Kieltyka (1991), a top executive for a Japanese- owned manufacturing plant in the USA and a former 20-year executive of a major US-managed plant, explained that the Japanese philosophy dictates that

Japanese organizational

culture

539

managers think of their organization as family. In a Japanese-owned company, managers always listen to employees' problems and concerns, both work- related and personal.

The Japanese have introduced into the work environment a sense of community. At Toyota, for example, they have a day-care center for young mothers who wish to work. Out of 6,000 employees at Toyota, roughly 5,900 of them are US citizens. Most of them are from Kentucky (Aaron, 1996). This sense of community tends to foster togetherness or rather a sense of fate: what happens to one will happen to all.

A recent example will further illustrate this point. In 1998, there was a slow- down in the sales of the small car market. For Nissan, in Smyrna, Tennessee, there was no exception. In the early summer of 1998, Nissan did not lay off any employees in response to the softened small car market. Instead, Nissan initiated the four-day work week program. During this time period, employees on the assembly line worked 32 hours (four days) per week and were paid 36 hours per week, while management and maintenance workers continued to work 40 hours per week. At the same time, Nissan instituted training programs for employees in new jobs and utilized the human resources effectively to meet the market conditions. Further, most employees enjoyed the three-day weekend for the whole summer and were quite happy. With the flexibility in a union-free environment, Nissan has created a win-win situation for all (Laws and Tang, 1999).

In contrast, also in 1998, 9,200 GM workers of two parts plants in Flint, Michigan, started the strike on June 5 and June 11, respectively. Owing to the parts' shortage, GM and other parts plants laid off about 200,000 workers in almost all GM plants in North America. This strike cost GM about US$80 million per day. At the end of the second quarter, in 1998, GM lost US$2 billion. It is possible that the strike caused GM to lose money and further slow down its ability to improve efficiency and effectiveness in order to compete against other auto makers in the USA and around the world (Laws and Tang, 1999).

As has been suggested in the literature, rarely, if ever, do workers vote for unions. Rather, they cast votes against management. The first line supervisors are the best union organizers. With a strong organizational culture, Japanese transplants worldwide tend to create a better working environment for their employees, thus eliminating the need for a strong union.

Open communication and consensual decision making Japanese companies emphasize team spirit in work groups. Further, due to employees' long tenure in the organization and the network of friendships, employees tend to have extensive face-to-face communication in the work setting. Job rotation also may stimulate the emergence of informal lateral communication network.

In the consensual decision-making process, the manager will not decide until others who will be affected have had sufficient time to offer their views, feel they have been fairly heard, and are willing to support the decision even

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

540

though they may not feel that it is the best one. Managers are open to all questions (Kieltyka, 1991). Managers are `̀ open'' and tend to have a high level of trust and to involve their people (Schein, 1981, p. 59). Recently, the notion of trust has received a lot of attention in the literature (Gilbert and Tang, 1998; Sitkin et al., 1998).

Further, their `̀ consensus decision making'' and `̀ bottom-up communication'' are also noteworthy for Japan's success. `̀ In a strong culture, people want to feel involved in their organizations and they need to know their input is valued'' (Corbett, 1986, p. 74). Further, `̀ managers encourage people to speak up when they disagree with a decision and inform all employees of what is happening in other parts of the organization'' (Corbett, 1986, p. 72). This notion is strongly related to the team approach in organizations.

The team approach The Japanese also `̀ encourage and place responsibility on groups rather than on individuals'' and emphasize a team goal (Ouchi, 1981). Thus, the Japanese- owned company have a significantly stronger emphasis on the use of teams than the US-owned company (Tang and Crofford, 1995/1996).

Because of Japan's team-orientation, moreover, there are fewer factors that make distinctions between management and employees at the Japanese- managed company than at the US-managed company. At the Japanese-owned company, they do not have executive dining rooms, reserved parking spaces, etc. Employees all wear the same uniforms from the president to the line workers. Further, there is less of an adversarial (we vs they, or employee vs management) relationship in the Japanese-managed company.

Manager knowledge In the area of human resource, many large Japanese companies have practiced lifetime employment in the past (Hatvany and Pucik, 1981). Under conditions of lifetime employment, job rotation and slow promotion are used extensively unless an organization is expanding dramatically. As a consequence, managers do not have the specialization of careers. They are very knowledgeable concerning the operations of the whole organization and have more empathy and understanding for other functions.

Further, as we discussed earlier, due to long tenure and the network of friendships, managers and their subordinates develop long-term relationships and a culture in which everyone knows his or her place in the status hierarchy in Japan. The manager is automatically more of a `̀ mentor'', teaching employees through subtle cues, exercising great patience, and reinforcing the basic company philosophy as a conceptual source that helps subordinates decide what to do in any given situation. Managers are easily available to provide help to employees.

In this study, we developed items based on the present review of the literature that tapped on the following four dimensions:

(1) family orientation and loyalty;

(2) open communication;

Japanese organizational

culture

541

(3) team approach; and

(4) manager knowledge.

These dimensions have `̀ not'' been examined extensively in the organizational culture literature (e.g. Cooke and Lafferty, 1989; Cooke and Rousseau, 1988; Glaser, 1983; Kilman and Saxton, 1983; Sashkin, 1984; Xenikou and Furnham, 1996). Many studies in the literature have examined the cross-cultural differences in work-related attitudes and values in several countries (Abramson et al., 1993; Beechler and Yang, 1994; Cox and Cooper, 1985; Hofstede, 1983; Mullen, 1995; Singh, 1995; Ralston et al., 1993; Riordan and Vandenberg, 1994).

First, the present authors argue that, although the employees at these two automobile plants are all US workers in the USA, it is expected that there will be some significant differences in the JOCS due to the cultural differences in the Japanese-owned and the US-owned plants. Second, besides focusing on the mean differences, the present authors will further examine two types of equivalence (conceptual as well as true-score equivalence). In the field of organizational behavior, researchers transform an unobservable phenomenon (i.e. psychological constructs such as Japanese management philosophy, organizational culture) into an observable reality. Constructs of the survey instrument are measured by imperfect indicators. The structural equation modeling (SEM) approach deals with the relationships of underlying latent traits instead of observed variables which contain measurement errors. Many of these variables may be highly related, causing problems related to collinearity. This method directly tests assumptions of conceptual and true- score equivalency. The following hypotheses will be tested:

H1. There will be significant mean differences regarding the JOCS between employees of the Japanese-owned and the US-owned automobile plants in the USA. More specifically, employees of the Japanese-owned automobile plant will have significantly higher scores on the JOCS than employees of the US-owned automobile plants.

H2. There will be differences in covariance matrices regarding the JOCS between employees of the Japanese-owned and the US-owned automobile plants in the USA.

H3. There will be differences in factor loadings regarding the JOCS between employees of the Japanese-owned and the US-owned automobile plants in the USA.

Other work-related variables In the literature, employee commitment has been investigated by many scholars (e.g. Mowday et al., 1982) and is generally viewed as a positive factor for both individuals and organizations (Romzek, 1989). Further, Japanese workers in large organizations have enjoyed their life-time employment and tend to have a high level of commitment to organizations (Davenport and Tang, 1996; Rhody and Tang, 1995).

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

542

Pierce et al. (1989, p. 625) defined organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) as:

. . . the degree to which organizational members believe that they can satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the context of an organization . . . As a result, employees with high OBSE should perceive themselves as important, meaningful, effectual, and worthwhile within their employing organization.

Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found that OBSE is the most significant variable related to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) for employees in the USA and in the Middle East.

According to Singer and Tang (1996), organizational instrumentality (OI) is analogous to union instrumentality and refers to an employee's perception of the organization's effectiveness in securing valent outcomes for him or her. OI can be defined as:

. . . employees' beliefs and confidence (expectancy) that the organization will be instrumental in helping employees achieve their major personal goals in the organization (Singer and Tang, 1996, p. 273).

Singer and Tang (1996) found that employees with high job security will have high confidence in the organization's OI and may be less likely to vote for a union. Finally, numerous studies of job satisfaction have appeared in the literature of organizational behavior. Further, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire is one of the most often used measures of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967).

The present authors assert that the constructs measured by the JOCS will be significantly correlated with employee commitment (Romzek, 1989), OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989), OI (Singer and Tang, 1996), and also intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). These correlation coefficients may also serve as the construct validity of the JOCS. It is reasonable to expect that those who work in the Japanese-owned automobile plant will score higher on these measures than those in the US-owned automobile plant.

H4. There will be differences in the JOCS and work-related variables between employees of the Japanese-owned and the US-owned automobile plants in the USA.

Method Participants The participants of this study were volunteers from two automobile manufacturing plants: one was a Japanese-owned manufacturing plant and the other was a similar US-owned manufacturing plant in the USA. Employees in the US-owned plant are unionized and represented by the UAW, whereas those in the Japanese-owned plant are not. Participants were approximately 50 percent white-collar and 50 percent blue-collar workers from each plant.

For the Japanese-owned plant, 173 workers were randomly selected for the survey and 156 of them returned usable responses. The response rate was 90 percent. For the US-owned plant, 167 employees were randomly surveyed and 144 completed forms were collected, giving an 86 percent response rate.

Japanese organizational

culture

543

For the whole sample, the participants were about 40.21 years old. On average, they had 13.83 years of education and an annual income of US$44,879.28. The mean of their organizational tenure was about 12.52 years. Results showed that these two samples reflected good representation of the populations in these two plants. The mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients of major variables for the whole sample are presented in Table I. Results for the two separate samples are presented in Table II.

Measures A research questionnaire was developed specifically for the present study. These employee's participation in this study was completely voluntary and their confidentiality was protected by answering the questionnaire anonymously. Participants' age, sex (dummy coding: male = 0; female = 1), education level (in years), job tenure (in years), and self-reported income were obtained.

The response format for the attitudinal measures was a five-point Likert scale using disagree strongly (1), neutral (3), and agree strongly (5) as anchors. The 29-item JOCS was developed by the present authors based on suggestions in the literature. Further, several work-related variables were also included:

. the 11-item organizational involvement sale (Romzek, 1989);

. the ten-item OBSE (Pierce et al., 1989);

. the 13-item OI (Singer and Tang, 1996); and

. the 20-item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1967).

The Cronbach's alpha for each of these variables in the present study is presented in Table I.

Results Table I presents the mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients of all variables for the whole sample. Further, Table II shows the means of major variables for the Japanese-owned plant and the US-owned plant. In our data analyses, we will present the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the JOCS and the tests of measurement equivalence in four phases (Tables III-V). Then, we will examine internal reliability, and validity of the JOCS and also the differences of the JOCS and other work-related variables using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (Table II).

Phase 1. Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) First of all, the 29-item scale was analyzed using a series of EFAs. The exploratory factor analyses were conducted separately for participants in the Japanese transplant and for those in the US-owned plant. Factor analyses were conducted using a criterion of eigenvalues greater than one, followed by the varimax rotation, and a scree-test. Items loaded very strongly and consistently on specific factors in both samples were retained. Based on these procedures, 15 items were selected for the final JOCS (see Table III).

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

544

V a ri

a b

le M

S D

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 .

A g

e 4 0 .2

1 8 .9

4 ±

0 .1

6 *

± 0 .0

8 0 .7

1 *

0 .1

6 *

± 0 .1

7 *

± 0 .1

0 ±

0 .1

6 *

± 0 .0

6 ±

0 .1

5 ±

0 .0

5 ±

0 .2

0 *

± 0 .0

9 ±

0 .0

8 ±

0 .1

6 *

2 .

S ex

0 .0

0 ±

0 .1

5 *

± 0 .1

0 ±

0 .0

0 ±

0 .0

0 0 .0

4 ±

0 .0

3 ±

0 .0

0 ±

0 .0

6 0 .0

5 ±

0 .0

5 0 .0

1 ±

0 .0

4 3 .

E d

u ca

ti o n

1 3 .8

3 2 .1

7 ±

0 .1

6 *

0 .2

2 *

± 0 .1

1 ±

0 .0

3 0 .0

7 ±

0 .0

8 ±

0 .0

4 ±

0 .1

3 0 .0

8 ±

0 .0

9 ±

0 .0

4 ±

0 .0

8 4 .

T en

u re

1 2 .5

2 9 .5

3 0 .1

6 *

± 0 .2

9 *

± 0 .1

4 *

± 0 .2

8 *

± 0 .1

1 ±

0 .2

5 *

± 0 .1

8 *

± 0 .3

2 *

± 0 .2

5 *

± 0 .1

6 *

± 0 .2

6 *

5 .

In co

m e

4 4 ,8

7 9 .2

8 5 6 ,1

8 7 .9

1 ±

0 .0

3 0 .0

3 0 .0

6 ±

0 .0

1 ±

0 .0

2 ±

0 .0

5 0 .0

3 0 .0

4 ±

0 .0

4 0 .0

4 6 .

F a m

il y

3 .4

5 0 .9

3 0 .5

4 *

0 .5

3 *

0 .4

9 *

0 .7

7 *

0 .7

1 *

0 .5

7 *

0 .7

4 *

0 .5

7 *

0 .6

8 *

7 .

O p

en 3 .6

5 0 .9

5 0 .6

6 *

0 .6

6 *

0 .8

6 *

0 .4

7 *

0 .5

0 *

0 .5

5 *

0 .5

2 *

0 .6

6 *

8 .

T ea

m 3 .8

6 0 .9

0 0 .6

6 *

0 .8

5 *

0 .4

7 *

0 .5

0 *

0 .4

8 *

0 .5

0 *

0 .6

1 *

9 .

M a n

a g

er 3 .6

2 0 .9

3 0 .8

4 *

0 .4

7 *

0 .4

5 *

0 .5

3 *

0 .4

5 *

0 .6

6 *

1 0 .

JO C

S 3 .6

4 0 .7

7 0 .6

4 *

0 .6

1 *

0 .6

9 *

0 .6

2 *

0 .7

9 *

1 1 .

C o m

m it

3 .1

6 0 .6

6 0 .5

9 *

0 .6

9 *

0 .6

0 *

0 .6

3 *

1 2 .

O B

S E

3 .9

9 0 .6

5 0 .6

0 *

0 .6

7 *

0 .5

7 *

1 3 .

O I

3 .6

1 0 .7

9 0 .5

7 *

0 .7

2 *

1 4 .

In tr

in si

c 3 .7

8 0 .5

8 0 .6

4 *

1 5 .

E x

tr in

si c

3 .4

0 0 .7

7

C ro

n b

a ch

's a lp

h a

0 .8

7 0 .8

8 0 .7

8 0 .8

0 0 .9

2 0 .8

2 0 .9

0 0 .9

3 0 .8

4 0 .8

0

N o te

s :

S ex

: m

a le

= 0 ,

fe m

a le

= 1 .

JO C

S :

1 5 -i

te m

. *

p <

0 .0

5

Table I. Mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients of variables

Japanese organizational

culture

545

Results of exploratory factor analyses showed that there were four factors for both the Japanese-owned and the US-owned plants (Table IV). Factor 1 revealed family orientation and loyalty. This factor had five items. Factor 2 focused on open communication among employees (four items). Factor 3 suggested the team approach (three items). Finally, Factor 4 suggested manager knowledge in the work setting (three items). The inter-factor correlations among these four factors and the Cronbach's alpha for each factor and for the whole scale are also presented in Table IV.

Phase 2. Mean differences (MANOVA) The results of the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), based on the 15-item scale, showed that there was a significant overall difference between employees at the Japanese-owned and the US-owned plants in JOCS (F (15, 281) = 11.02, p < 0.001, Wilks' Lambda = 0.630). The amount of variance explained was 37 percent. Further univariate F-tests showed that the differences came from 14 of the 15 items. The mean, standard deviation, F-value, and the items of the JOCS are presented in Table III.

The differences are all in the predicted direction. For example, employees at the Japanese-owned automobile plant had indicated a significantly stronger feeling that their company tries to create a unique `̀ family'' atmosphere (Item 1) and their company emphasized strong loyalty and dedication (Item 2) than those at the US-owned plant. Thus, employees in these two samples do feel differently regarding the culture in their organization. These significant mean differences supported H1.

Further, there are two major issues when we examine the general concern for full measurement equivalence in several populations:

Variable USA Japan F p

1. Age 43.30 36.91 40.26 0.000 2. Sex 0.81 0.369 3. Education 14.00 13.79 0.64 0.425 4. Tenure 18.23 7.10 136.63 0.000 5. Income 43,801.11 46,472.79 0.14 0.706 6. Family 2.92 3.92 109.03 0.000 7. Open 3.36 3.89 23.15 0.000 8. Team 2.54 4.13 32.90 0.000 9. Manager 3.46 3.74 6.39 0.012

10. Commitment 2.93 3.36 32.55 0.000 11. OBSE 3.76 4.20 37.14 0.000 12. OI 3.20 3.96 82.16 0.000 13. MSQ ± intrinsic 3.62 3.92 20.21 0.000 14. MSQ ± extrinsic 3.07 3.68 51.25 0.000

Notes: Sex: male = 0, female = 1. MANOVA: F (14, 257) = 22.22, Wilks' Lambda = 0.452, p = 0.000. Univariate F-tests: df = 1,270. The 15-item JOCS is not included in the MANOVA analysis: 3.32 (USA), 3.92 (Japan)

Table II. Mean of major

variables for employees at US-owned and

Japanese-owned automobile plants

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

546

(1) the comparability of constructs; and

(2) the calibration of true scores.

First, it is plausible that members of distinct groups (i.e. employees at the Japanese transplant and the traditional US-owned plant) do not use a common frame of reference when responding to the items of a given instrument. Second, true-score equivalence among groups deals with whether respondents calibrate the intervals anchoring the measurement continuum in the same manner. A covariance structure analytic approach was employed in Phases 3 and 4 to test the conceptual as well as true-score equivalence.

Phase 3. Equivalence of the variance/covariance matrices Phase 3 tested the null hypothesis that employees at the Japanese transplant (J) and the traditional US-owned plant (A) have equal variance-covariance matrices:

Mean (SD) Items Japan USA F

a

1. My company tries to create a unique `̀ family'' atmosphere 3.95 (0.97) 2.59 (1.13) 124.72***

2. My company emphasized strong loyalty and dedication 4.03 (0.90) 3.16 (1.13) 55.46***

3. My company emphasized open communication 3.99 (0.89) 3.13 (1.01) 60.88*** 4. My company treats each employee as a total

person 3.63 (1.03) 2.71 (1.12) 53.55*** 5. I feel that my organization has a real interest in

the welfare and overall satisfaction of those who work here 4.01 (0.93) 3.05 (1.18) 62.15***

6. My manager/supervisor encourages people to speak up when they disagree with a decision 3.59 (1.13) 3.23 (1.32) 6.70**

7. My manager gives me the freedom to express ideas 4.04 (0.91) 3.47 (1.19) 22.02***

8. I feel that my manager values my ideas and inputs 3.94 (0.98) 3.23 (1.09) 35.38***

9. My manager is open to all questions 4.02 (0.90) 3.59 (1.11) 3.46*** 10. I have a chance to meet with my manager

one-to-one at least twice a year to discuss performance and goals 4.10 (1.14) 3.45 (1.21) 22.96***

11. My manager encourages people in my group to work as a team 4.23 (0.94) 3.59 (0.99) 32.63***

12. My manager encourages people who work in my group to exchange opinions and ideas 4.10 (0.98) 3.61 (0.95) 19.28***

13. My manager often communicates the overall organizational goals to us 3.68 (1.02) 3.32 (1.05) 8.67**

14. I feel that my manager has the knowledge and training to be a good leader 3.89 (1.10) 3.68 (1.10) 2.82

15. My manager provides help, training, and guidance so that I can improve my performance 3.72 (1.11) 3.35 (1.11) 8.00**

Notes: Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) results: F (15, 281) = 11.02, p < 0.001, Wilks' Lambda = 0.630.

a Univariate F-tests: df = 1,294. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Table III. Mean (including standard deviation) attitudinal differences between employees at Japanese-owned and US-owned automobile plants on the JOCS

Japanese organizational

culture

547

Items Family Open Team Knowledge

Japanese-owned automobile plant 1. Family atmosphere 0.69 0.23 0.06 ±0.16 2. Loyalty and dedication 0.85 ±0.31 0.15 0.08 3. Open communication 0.63 0.17 0.09 ±0.08 4. Total person 0.59 0.35 ±0.23 0.09 5. Interest in people 0.65 0.01 ±0.05 0.22 6. Speak up ±0.15 0.65 0.12 0.17 7. Express ideas 0.14 0.81 0.04 ±0.07 8. Ideas are valued 0.08 0.70 0.11 0.05 9. Open to all questions 0.05 0.65 0.01 0.16

10. Meet with my manager ±0.02 ±0.03 0.55 0.12 11. Work as a team 0.04 0.07 0.69 0.07 12. Exchange opinions 0.05 0.23 0.68 ±0.03 13. Overall goals 0.10 0.08 0.21 0.41 14. Has knowledge/training 0.09 0.22 0.34 0.35 15. Provides help ±0.03 0.24 0.20 0.68

Inter-factor correlations 1. Family orientation/loyalty 0.50 0.50 0.26 2. Open communication 0.59 0.47 3. Team approach 0.50 4. Manager knowledge

Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach's alpha for 15-item JOCS = 0.92) 0.85 0.87 0.77 0.81

US-owned automobile plant 1. Family atmosphere 0.79 ±0.11 ±0.03 ±0.05 2. Loyalty and dedication 0.64 0.02 0.21 ±0.10 3. Open communication 0.51 0.19 0.02 0.02 4. Total person 0.74 0.09 ±0.17 0.12 5. Interest in people 0.54 ±0.00 0.13 0.08 6. Speak up ±0.00 0.67 0.01 0.18 7. Express ideas ±0.02 0.97 ±0.07 ±0.04 8. Ideas are valued 0.05 0.75 0.13 ±0.07 9. Open to all questions 0.11 0.46 0.15 0.26

10. Meet with my manager 0.04 0.09 0.16 0.30 11. Work as a team 0.13 ±0.09 0.71 0.18 12. Exchange opinions ±0.09 0.21 0.89 0.03 13. Overall goals 0.03 ±0.16 0.23 0.54 14. Has knowledge/training ±0.08 0.15 0.00 0.74 15. Provides help 0.05 0.13 ±0.01 0.75

Inter-factor correlations 1. Family orientation/loyalty 0.37 0.60 0.50 2. Open communication 0.50 0.31 3. Team approach 0.49 4. Manager knowledge

Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach's alpha for 15-item JOCS = 0.90) 0.81 0.87 0.74 0.82

Table IV. Factor loadings of the JOCS for employees at

Japanese-owned and US-owned automobile

plants

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

548

Ho: XJ � XA

The variance-covariance matrices of the 15-item JOCS were calculated for both the participants at the Japanese transplant and those at the US-owned plant. The results showed that the variance-covariance matrices among the two groups were different regarding the JOCS, chi-square (120, n = 329) = 283.70, p < 0.05. Since the chi-square test was omnibus in nature and was significant, the next step is to identify the source of possible nonequivalence using a series of increasing restrictive hypotheses. H2 was supported.

Phase 4. Equivalence of factor loadings Phase 4 examines the equivalence of factor loadings by placing equality constraints on the factor loadings across the two groups. The true score equivalence was

Cumulative multivariate statistics Univariate increment Step Chi-square df p Chi-square p

1 3.691 1 0.055 3.691 0.055 2 6.513 2 0.039 2.822 0.093 3 9.475 3 0.024 2.962 0.085 4 10.900 4 0.028 1.425 0.233 5 12.732 5 0.026 1.832 0.176 6 14.077 6 0.029 1.345 0.246 7 14.981 7 0.036 0.904 0.342 8 15.742 8 0.046 0.761 0.383 9 16.276 9 0.061 0.535 0.465 10 16.571 10 0.084 0.295 0.587 11 16.850 11 0.112 0.278 0.598 12 16.906 12 0.153 0.056 0.812 13 16.987 13 0.200 0.081 0.776 14 17.022 14 0.255 0.034 0.853 15 17.029 15 0.317 0.008 0.929

Lagrange multiplier test (for releasing constraints) Constraints to be released are: Step 1 (1, V7, F2) ± (2, V7, F2) = 0 2 (1, V6, F2) ± (2, V6, F2) = 0 3 (1, V9, F2) ± (2, V9, F2) = 0 4 (1, V4, F1) ± (2, V4, F1) = 0 5 (1, V2, F1) ± (2, V2, F1) = 0 6 (1, V5, F1) ± (2, V5, F1) = 0 7 (1, V10, F3) ± (2, V10, F3) = 0 8 (1, V13, F4) ± (2, V13, F4) = 0

Notes: 1 = Japanese-owned, 2 = US-owned. Chi-square (183, n = 329) = 372.91, p = 0.001, Bentler-Bonett normed fit index = 0.857, Bentler-Bonett non-normed fit index = 0.909, comparative fit index = 0.921

Table V. Testing for the equivalence of factor loadings across two groups

Japanese organizational

culture

549

determined by comparing the two samples on the true-score units associated with each observed item of the JOCS. The null hypothesis of this more restrictive model tested here was that there was equivalence of factor loadings across two groups:

Ho: �J � �A

We examined the factor loading, standard error and t-value of parameter estimates for testing equivalence of factor loadings across two groups. Results for the two samples revealed that the equivalence of factor loadings was not supported, chi- square (183, n = 329) = 372.908, p < 0.001. This means that the factor loadings for these two groups are different.

Table V shows the results of the cumulative multivariate statistics. In cumulative Step 1, Item 7's factor loading on Factor 2 for the Japanese sample was marginally different from that of the US sample, chi-square (1, n = 329) = 3.691, p = 0.055 (see the lower part of Table V, Step 1). In Step 2, two items (Items 7 and 6) were combined in that the factor loading of Item 6 in the Japanese sample was significantly different from that of the US sample, chi- square (2, n = 329) = 6.513, p = 0.039. Similar results were also reported in Table V following the same format for Steps 3-8. Table V shows that the factor loadings for the following cumulative items were also significantly different from these two groups of employees: Items 9, 4, 2, 5, 10, and 13. The results of Step 9 show that the difference was not significant. H3 was supported.

Reliability and validity Cronbach's alpha values for the four factors of the JOCS using the whole sample are listed below:

(1) family orientation and loyalty (0.87);

(2) open communication (0.88);

(3) team approach (0.78); and

(4) manager knowledge (0.80).

Cronbach's alpha for the 15-item scale using the whole sample was 0.92. Further, the alphas of the 15-item scale for the Japanese transplant sample was 0.92 and for the US-owned plant sample was 0.90. Table IV also presents the reliability alpha for each of the four factors in these two samples. Thus, the internal consistency of the JOCS was quite good.

Table I also shows all the correlation coefficients between the four factors of the JOCS, the overall 15-item JOCS (i.e. the average score of all 15 items), and other work-related variables. Family orientation and loyalty, open communication, team approach, and manager knowledge were significantly correlated with commitment, OBSE, OI, and intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction (p < 0.05). These factors were also significantly correlated with age and tenure. Table II shows the differences of the two samples regarding these two variables. These results offer some preliminary construct validity of the JOCS.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

550

US-owned vs Japanese-owned All demographic variables, the four factors of the JOCS, and work-related variables were analyzed in a MANOVA using the Japanese-owned automobile plant and the USA-owned automobile plant as the independent variable (see Table II). Results showed that there were significant differences in these variables between these two groups of employees (F (14, 257) = 22.22, Wilks' Lambda = 0.452, p = 0.000). Further univariate F-tests showed that the differences were related to the following variables:

. age;

. tenure;

. family orientation and loyalty;

. open communication;

. team approach;

. manager knowledge;

. commitment;

. OBSE;

. OI;

. intrinsic job satisfaction; and

. extrinsic satisfaction.

The overall 15-item JOCS scores were not included in the MANOVA. Our ANOVA results suggested that employees in the Japanese-owned plant scored higher (3.92) on JOCS than did those in the US-owned plant (3.32) (F (1, 295) = 53.92, p = 0.000). Significant results were again found in all attitudinal variables in analyses of co-variance (ANCOVA) holding age and job tenure as controls. H4 was supported.

Discussion In this study, we specifically designed a survey to tap the Japanese management philosophy. The present investigation identifies four factors for the JOCS: family orientation and loyalty; open communication; team approach; and manager knowledge. Employees at the Japanese-owned automobile plant and those at the US-owned plant differ in 14 items of the 15-item JOCS. Further, the different variance-covariance matrices in these two groups reveal that the structures of relationships among variables between two groups are different in general terms. The factor loadings of JOCS are different for these two samples that reflect the differences between two groups regarding specific structure of relationships among variables and the true score equivalence.

Our research shows that the JOCS has good internal reliability. Thus, items within each factor are measuring a consistent construct. The correlation coefficients among the four factors of the JOCS are quite high, which suggests that the four factors are not completely orthogonal or independent of each

Japanese organizational

culture

551

other. A close examination of the whole 15-item JOCS suggests that the Cronbach's alphas for the whole sample, the Japanese plant sample, and the US plant sample, are all very high: 0.92, 0.92, and 0.90, respectively. It is plausible that the whole 15-item scale is measuring a very homogeneous construct and all 15 items can be used as one scale. Further, this scale is related to many existing and important work-related variables (i.e. commitment, OBSE, OI, and intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction) offering some support for the construct validity of this scale.

It is also interesting to note that all participants in this study were US workers working on similar jobs. Owing to the fact that these US workers have been exposed to different company policies, management styles, leadership behaviors, and organizational cultures, they responded to the same survey questionnaire differently. Our survey questionnaire measures specific constructs of the Japanese culture. Our results show that the JOCS may be appropriate for employees at the Japanese-owned company. However, employees at the US-owned company may have a different set of perceptions regarding the constructs of the scale. Thereby, these two groups of employees' response patterns on JOCS are not perfectly identical.

Our results further suggest that employees in these two automobile plants have similar self-reported income, education, and gender composition. The nature of their job duties and responsibilities is about the same. Employees in the Japanese-owned plant have a significantly higher level of commitment to the organization, higher perceptions about themselves as valuable employees in the organization (OBSE), greater confidence in the organization in achieving their personal goals (OI), as well as greater intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction than their counterparts in the US-owned automobile plant. These findings offer some verification of the fact that the Japanese-owned plant is `̀ not unionized'' and the US-owned plant is. We do not manipulate the culture in these two organizations. Therefore, no cause-and-effect relationship can be stated regarding culture and other work-related attitudes and values. However, the Japanese philosophy (trust employees, build employee loyalty to the company, invest in training and treat employees as resources, recognize employee accomplishments, decentralize decision making, and employ consensual decision making) may play an important role in organizations (Cole, 1980; Davenport and Tang, 1996; Harper, 1988; Johnson and Ouchi, 1974; Laws and Tang, 1999; Rhody and Tang, 1995).

As we pointed out earlier, the UPS strike in 1997, the GM strikes in 1996 and 1998, were very costly to organizations. Through the GM strike in 1998, GM lost US$2 billion. This may happen to any organizations in the USA or around the world. It is clear that organizational culture can be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Corporations with strong organizational cultures have strong management that may be related not only to employee morale and quality of work life, but also to a firm's financial performance (Barney, 1986).

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

552

On the basis of the attitude-behavior consistency literature (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977; Tang and Baumeister, 1984), we argue that attitudes will predict behavior effectively only when there is high correspondence between the attitude object and the behavioral option. This study offers a new measure for researchers and managers in organizational behavior and human resources. It should be pointed out that we have only collected data from employees in one Japanese-owned and one US-owned automobile plant using the survey method. In this study, our unit of analysis is the individual employees.

Moreover, similarity is one of the most important determinants of interpersonal attraction. The attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model suggests that employees with some specific values, attitudes, and backgrounds may be attracted to, selected by, and will remain with, organizations that have organizational goals and culture to their liking. They prefer to work for either the Japanese-owned automobile plant or the US-owned plant. Therefore, the good fit between the employees and the organization (ASA), employee membership, and turnover in the organization need to be examined further (Chatman, 1989; Tang and Frost, 1999; Tang et al., 2000).

Conclusions In this study, we developed a 15-item JOCS. This scale has four factors: family orientation and loyalty; open communication; team approach; and manager knowledge. This scale measures a very homogeneous construct and has good reliability. This scale is also related to many existing and important work- related variables and offers strong construct validity. Employees in the Japanese-owned plant scored higher on this scale than did those in the US- owned plant. We have faith in the JOCS as a valuable tool to tap on the Japanese management philosophy. It is also relatively short and easy to use. Researchers and managers may want to consider this valuable scale for future research, especially in pursuing benchmarking as a means of enhancing quality and productivity in the global competitive market (Main, 1992) and in keeping the facility union-free (Laws and Tang, 1999).

Limitations It is also very difficult to separate the issue of the Japanese-owned plant vs the US-owned plant from the issue of non-unionized plant vs unionized plant. Managers and employees' attitudes and behavior may be profoundly influenced by the presence of the union. Owing to limitations set by the management, we were unable to further explore issues related to the union and other measures of organizational culture in the present study. Future researchers may want to expand the nomological network (i.e. construct validity) of the JOCS by examining other work-related attitudinal variables and outcome variables, such as money attitudes (Tang, 1992; 1993), voluntary turnover, and voting behavior in union certification election and replicate the present findings in several Japanese-owned and US-owned organizations in different industries to verify the generalizability of the present findings.

Japanese organizational

culture

553

References

Aaron, C. (1996), `̀ Book review: Japanese Auto Transplants in the Heartland: Corporatism and Community, by Robert Perrucci'', Economic Geography, Vol. 72 No. 1, January, pp. 89-92.

Abramson, N.R., Lane, H.W., Nagai, H. and Takagi, H. (1993), `̀ A comparison of Canadian and Japanese cognitive styles: implications for management interaction'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 575-87.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), `̀ Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 888-912.

Barney, J.B. (1986), `̀ Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 656-65.

Beechler, S. and Yang, J.Z. (1994), `̀ The transfer of Japanese-style management to American subsidiaries: contingencies, constraints, and competencies'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 467-91.

Bowman, J.S. (1984), `̀ Japanese management: personnel policies in the public sector'', Public Personnel Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 197-219.

Chatman, J.A. (1989), `̀ Improving interactional organizational research: a model of person- organization fit'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 333-49.

Clark, R.C. (1979), The Japanese Company, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Cole, R.E. (1980), `̀ Learning from the Japanese: prospects and pitfalls'', Management Review, Vol. 69 No. 9, September, pp. 23-42.

Cooke, R.A. and Lafferty, J.C. (1989), Organizational Culture Inventory, Human Synergistics, Plymouth, MI.

Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D. (1988), `̀ Behavioral norms and expectations'', Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 245-72.

Corbett, W. (1986), `̀ Communication tools inherent in corporate culture'', Personnel Journal, Vol. 65 No. 4, April, pp. 71-4.

Cox, C.C. and Cooper, C.L. (1985), `̀ The irrelevance of American organizational sciences to the UK and Europe'', Journal of General Management, Vol. 11, pp. 27-34.

Davenport, J.L. and Tang, T.L.P. (1996), `̀ Learning from Japanese companies and Japanese transplants in the United States'', Employment Relations Today, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 49-58.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Gilbert, J.A. and Tang, T.L.P. (1998), `̀ An examination of organizational trust antecedents'', Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 321-38.

Glaser, R. (1983), The Corporate Culture Survey, Organizational Design and Development, Bryn Mawr, PA.

Harper, S.C. (1988), `̀ Now that the dust has settled: learning from Japanese management'', Business Horizons, Vol. 31 No. 4, July/August, pp. 43-51.

Hatvany, N. and Pucik, V. (1981), `̀ An integrated management system: lessons from the Japanese experience'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 469-80.

Hofstede, G. (1983), `̀ The culture relativity of organizational theories'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 75-90.

Johnson, R.T. and Ouchi, W.G. (1974), `̀ Made in the US (under Japanese management)'', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 61-9.

Kieltyka, J. (1991), personal communication with the author.

Kilman, R.H. and Saxton, M.J. (1983), The Kilman-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey, Organizational Design Consultants, Pittsburgh, PA.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

554

Laws, J. and Tang, T.L.P. (1999), `̀ Japanese transplants and union membership: the case of Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation'', SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 16-26.

Main, J. (1992), `̀ How to steal the best ideas around'', Fortune, Vol. 126 No. 8, 19 October, pp. 102-6.

Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Mullen, M.R. (1995), `̀ Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-96.

Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979), `̀ On studying organizational cultures'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 570-81.

Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. and Dunham, R.B. (1989), `̀ Organization-based self- esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 622-48.

Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Cheung, F.M. and Terpstra, R.H. (1993), `̀ Differences in managerial values: a study of US, Hong Kong and PRC managers'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 249-75.

Rhody, J.D. and Tang, T.L.P. (1995), `̀ Learning from Japanese transplants and American corporations'', Public Personnel Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 19-32.

Riordan, C.M. and Vandenberg, R.J. (1994), `̀ A central question in cross-cultural research: do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner?'', Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 643-71.

Rohlen, T. (1974), For Harmony and Strength, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Romzek, B.S. (1989), `̀ Personal consequences of employee commitment'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 649-61.

Sashkin, M. (1984), Pillars of Excellence: Organizational Beliefs Questionnaire, Organizational Design and Development, Bryn Mawr, PA.

Schein, E.H. (1981), `̀ Does Japanese management style have a message for American managers?'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 22, pp. 55-68.

Schein, E.H. (1986), `̀ What you need to know about organizational culture'', Training and Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, January, pp. 30-3.

Schein, E.H. (1990), `̀ Organizational culture'', American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 109-19.

Schein, E.H. (1996), `̀ Culture: the missing concept in organization studies'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 229-40.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. and Morley, D.D. (1989), `̀ Adhering to organizational culture'', Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 483-500.

Singer, M.G. and Tang, T.L.P. (1996), `̀ Factors related perceived organizational instrumentality'', Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 271-86.

Singh, J. (1995), `̀ Measurement issues in cross-national research'', Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 597-619.

Sitkin, S.B., Rousseau, D.M., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998), `̀ Special topic forum on trust in and between organizations'', The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, special issue.

Japanese organizational

culture

555

Tang, T.L.P. (1992), `̀ The meaning of money revisited'', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 197-202.

Tang, T.L.P. (1993), `̀ The meaning of money: extension and exploration of the money ethic scale in a sample of university students in Taiwan'', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-9.

Tang, T.L.P. and Baumeister, R.F. (1984), `̀ Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance, and task labels on task preference: the ideology of turning play into work'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 99-105.

Tang, T.L.P. and Crofford, A.B. (1995/1996), `̀ Self-managing work teams'', Employment Relations Today, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 29-39.

Tang, T.L.P. and Frost, A.G. (1999), `̀ Employee turnover revisited: differences among involuntary turnover, voluntary turnover, and current employees'', Journal of Compensation and Benefits, Vol. 15 No. 2, September/October, pp. 41-6.

Tang, T.L.P. and Ibrahim, A.H.S. (1998), `̀ Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East'', Public Personnel Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 529-50.

Tang, T.L.P., Kim, J.K. and Tang, D.S.H. (2000), `̀ Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover?'', Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 213-45.

Tang, T.L.P., Luk, V.W.M. and Chiu, R.K. (2000), `̀ Pay differentials in the People's Republic of China: an examination of internal equity and external competitiveness'', Compensation and Benefits Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, March/April, pp. 43-9.

Tang, T.L.P., Tollison, P.S. and Whiteside, H.D. (1987), `̀ The effects of quality circle initiation on motivation to attend quality circle meetings and on task performance'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 799-814.

Tang, T.L.P., Tollison, P.S. and Whiteside, H.D. (1989), `̀ Quality circle productivity as related to upper-management attendance, circle initiation, and collar color'', Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 101-13.

Tang, T.L.P., Tollison, P.S. and Whiteside, H.D. (1991), `̀ Managers' attendance and the effectiveness of small work groups: the case of quality circles'', The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 131 No. 3, pp. 335-44.

Tang, T.L.P., Tollison, P.S. and Whiteside, H.D. (1993), `̀ Differences between active and inactive quality circles on attendance and performance'', Public Personnel Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 579-90.

Triandis, H.C., Leung, K., Villareal, M.J. and Clark, F.L. (1985), `̀ Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: convergent and discriminant validation'', Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 395-415.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967), Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center, Minneapolis, MN.

Womack, J., Jones, E. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Xenikou, A. and Furnham, A. (1996), `̀ A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire measures of organizational culture'', Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 349-71.

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

556

Abstracts from the wider literature

`̀ Perceptions of Japanese organizational culture: employees in non-unionized

Japanese-owned and unionized US-owned automobile plants''

The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act as a guide to further reading.

Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:

(1) Depth of research

(2) Value in practice

(3) Originality of thinking

(4) Readability for non-specialists.

The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan, Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax: (44) 1274 785204; E-mail: [email protected] quoting the reference number shown at the end of the abstract.

Should Western managers be encouraged to adopt JMPs ?(Japanese management practices) Naylor, D.M. Employee Relations (UK), 2000 Vol 22 No 2: p. 160 (19 pages)

Reviews the literature, since the 1970s, which has looked at whether Western managers should adopt Japanese management practices. Discusses the factors that indicate that the transfer of Japanese management practices may not be straightforward, pointing to differences in Western and Japanese corporate governance and in supplier relations. Reviews the literature on the transferability of those Japanese management practices which have created most interest among Western companies, dividing these according to whether they relate to personnel (teamworking and quality circles) or manufacturing (cellular manufacture and just-in-time). Concludes that the evidence overall seems to indicate that Japanese management practices can be adopted by Western companies, but warns against blindly copying these practices without analysing the reasons for their success and assessing their appropriateness. Considers if the convergence between managerial practices in Japan and the West will make the issue of the transfer of Japanese practices less important over time.

Japanese organizational

culture

557

Literature review/Theoretical with application in practice Indicators: Research implications: * Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******* Reference: 29AJ523 Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

The corporate culture myth Newman, V. and Chaharbaghi, K. Long Range Planning (UK), August 1998 Vol 31 No 4: p. 514 (9 pages)

Argues, forcibly, that studies of corporate culture are flawed and that cultural studies involving observation consistently include alienation of the observer, a content focus and the dangerous assumption that there is a universal meaning to be generated from the observations made. Illustrates this with examples from: the links made between modernity, flat organizations and open offices; and single status and continuous improvement in Japanese manufacturers. Examines the rhetoric of organizational culture and shows how an understanding of integrated learning and the `̀ data-information-knowledge- technology'' model can help develop a meaningful context for culture. Describes the curse of `̀ cultured organizations'' and the risks and opportunities of culture.

Wholly theoretical Indicators: Research implications: * Practice implications: ** Originality: *** Readability: *** Total number: ********* Reference: 29AA144 Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

The transfer of human resource and management practice by Japanese multinationals to Australia: do industry size and experience matter? Purcell, W., Nicholas, S., Merrett, D. and Whitwell, G. The International Journal of Human Resource Management (UK), February 1999 Vol 10 No 1: p. 72 (17 pages)

Investigates management and human resource management practices adopted by Japanese multinational enterprises (MNEs) and how this transfers to an Australian setting, using data drawn from `̀ A Directory of Japanese Business Activity in Australia ± 1992''. Refers to typical Japanese management practices, such as life-time employment, seniority wages, enterprise unionism, on-the-job training, multiskilling, flexible work practices, quality control and just-in-time systems, and asks whether or not these principles can be transplanted successfully to another culture. Questions if firm size, industry sector, ownership and experience all play a role in human resource management transfer. Frames hypotheses around internalization theory and agency theory. Outlines the research methodology used and techniques of data analysis. Reports that Japanese subsidiaries operating in Australia have adopted Japanese

Journal of Managerial Psychology 15,6

558

organizational practices, including those related to human resource management, partially as a control and monitoring device. Finds, however, that Japanese incentive structures, such as life-time employment, were not transferred to Australia, nevertheless, company policy generally worked towards creating a similar commitment through, for example, high levels of job security. Indicates that organizational practices are transferred in total, human resource practices are transferred selectively, size of organization is not indicative of management practices adopted, but experience, ownership and industry sector are all significant factors in the adoption of Japanese management practices.

Survey/Comparative/evaluation Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: * Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******* Reference: 28AN309 Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

Japanese transplants and union membership: the case of Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation Laws, J. and Tang, T.L. SAM Advanced Management Journal (USA), Spring 1999 Vol 64 No 2: p. 16 (8 pages)

Examines the effectiveness of trade unions within Japanese automotive transplants located in the USA through a study of the Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corporation. Considers the general decline of union membership within the USA, citing a number of events that have contributed to the quandary such as the General Motors strikes in 1996 and 1998. Explores the efforts at unionization within the Japanese transplants, looking particularly at the influence of organizational culture, Japanese organizational culture and the adoption of Japanese management philosophy within these transplants, on the effectiveness of these efforts. Addresses the union versus non-union issue, illustrating that as a whole, and evidenced by the situation at Nissan, union- free automotive manufacturers will continue to enjoy a measurable advantage over those who have chosen to be represented by a union.

Case study Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******** Reference: 28AT099 Cost: £12 (plus VAT)

Eastern and Western management practices: myth or reality? Floyd, D. Management Decision (UK), 1999 Vol 37 No 8: p. 628 (5 pages)

Suggests that it is not entirely appropriate to talk of Eastern and Western models of management practice since globalization and world trade have

Japanese organizational

culture

559

facilitated the spread of knowledge about a variety of management practices across many countries and cultures. Discusses the characteristics of Japanese organizations and compares them to those of organizations in the USA and Europe; contrasts Japanese, Anglo-Saxon and Korean organizational structures; and argues that although there are some similarities between Japanese and Korean models, there are also similarities between Korean and Western, particularly French, management practices. Contends that further convergence between East and West is likely since integration within the European Union has encouraged, for example, Japanese and Korean companies to operate in Europe and since the product range of Eastern countries is moving in the same direction as the West. Concludes, however, that some key differences remain relating to national cultures, particularly the role of governments, which could inhibit the process of convergence.

Comparative/evaluation Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: * Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******* Reference: 28AW767 Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

A comparison of American and Japanese work practices: skill formation, communications, and conflict resolution Shibata, H. Industrial Relations (USA), April 1999 Vol 38 No 2: p. 192 (23 pages)

Compares work practices at US and Japanese unionized firms in the early 1990s, focusing, in particular, on skills formation, communication and conflict resolution. Bases this research on observation of first-line supervisors, workers and local union executives and interviews with corporate executives at six unionized manufacturing plants; three in the USA and three in Japan. Analyses the training methods used in each of the plants, studying the use of on-the-job and off-the-job training, including the use of job rotation and temporary and permanent job transfers. Looks at the communications methods used, including decision making and work organization, particularly the use of semi- autonomous and self-managing teams. Sets out the number of grievances raised within the plants and looks at the methods used to resolve these. Draws this information together to analyse the similarities and differences between the US and Japanese manufacturing plants.

Theoretical with application in practice/Survey Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ** Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ******** Reference: 28AM413 Cost: £24 (plus VAT)