Home Berries Abstract comparison of Japanese American and Russian management. Comparative analysis of American and Japanese models of management

Berries

Abstract comparison of Japanese American and Russian management. Comparative analysis of American and Japanese models of management

Comparative characteristics Japanese and American models for clarity can be represented by the following diagram (Table 7.2.).

American industry has seen a steady increase in productivity over a long period. For 20 years after the Second World War, the increase in labor productivity was 3% annually, that is, 0.6-0.8% more than in Japan, England, Germany. In 1960 95% of automobiles, steel and consumer electronics in the American markets were produced in the USA, and American business had 25% of the world market for industrial products.

Suddenly, the picture of the global economy and leadership in labor productivity changed dramatically. SinceFrom 1973 to 1983, US productivity growth fell by about 0.4% per year. In 1979 the performance drop was actually already 2%. The share of US exports in the world market fell by 11%. Even more puzzling was the fact that the share of American industry in domestic market automobiles fell to 79%, steel - to 86%, and consumer electronics - to 50%. In terms of labor productivity growth, the United States has lagged behind many trading partners and competitors. In Japan, the growth of labor productivity was significantly higher than the world average. The same trend continued into the 1980s. However, in 1983 this trend reversed.

The first reaction of American managers to the loss of productivity and the loss of markets was to blame them.

Table 7.2.

Comparative characteristics of Japanese and American models

Japanese management model

American management model

1. Management decisions are made collectively on the basis of unanimity

2. Collective responsibility

3. Non-standard, flexible management structure

4. Informal organization of control

5. Collective control

6. Slow evaluation of the employee's work and promotion

7. The main quality of a leader is skill

to coordinate actions and control

8. Orientation of control to the group

9. Evaluation of management to achieve harmony in the team and the collective result

10. Personal informal relationships with subordinates

11. Promotion by seniority and seniority

12. Training of leaders of a universal type

13. Remuneration by indicators group work, seniority, etc.

14. Long-term employment

1. Individual nature of decision-making

2. Individual responsibility

3. Strictly formalized management structure

4. Clearly formalized control procedure

5. Individual control

leader

6. Quick assessment result of labor,

accelerated promotion

7. The main quality of a leader is

professionalism
8. Orientation of management to an individual

9. Evaluation of management by individual result
10. Formal relationship with subordinates

11. Business career is driven by personal results.

12. Training of highly specialized managers

13. Remuneration based on individual achievements
14. Hiring for a short period

Japan, they believed, was unfairly competitive because labor was cheap and the government provided subsidies; excessive government regulation undermines American industry; unions have too many rights; inflation; rising energy prices. There was some truth in these statements. But with careful and careful study of the problems were revealed Interesting Facts. For example, the situation with the cost of energy, government regulation, cost work force in American industry turned out to be less onerous than that of foreign partners. There was absolutely no acceptance of the fact that American consumers are buying Japanese cars and electronics not because they are cheaper, but because they are better. Analysis of the situation revealed unusual facts. Many of the Japanese innovation methods are adaptations of ideas taken from old management textbooks. So robotics was available to any American firm that wanted to implement it, but the Japanese industry used it better.

In addition, it was found that Japanese industry had an important advantage over many branches of American industry: the approach of Japanese leaders to management issues was much broader. Unlike their American counterparts, Japanese managers are not looking for quick fixes for falling output and profits. They are well aware that an increase in production alone does not increase productivity and that quality is no less important. In addition, Japanese managers did not develop measures to increase productivity for behind closed doors offices and did not "dump" them on the heads of unsuspecting workers. They carefully implemented carefully planned changes.

The reason for Japan's leading role in productivity and the key to increasing it in US manufacturing is no mystical secret. There is only one reason - good management. Man, with his weaknesses and opportunities, was placed at the very center of the management concept. Back in the 1930s, K. Matsushita realized the need for a deep, comprehensive study of all the subtleties of treating a person as a key element of the economic mechanism, but a fragile, relatively unreliable element that requires impeccably well-functioning managerial control. Thanks to his ideas, a strictly hierarchical triad of priorities has developed in the Japanese management system - people, finance, technology.

A true leader sees the organization as a system of interdependent elements whose very survival or success depends on continuous interaction with a dynamic external environment. A good leader knows that due to the high degree of interdependence of the elements of the organization, as well as the organization as a whole and the external environment, problems rarely have a simple and quick solution. Like all other important organizational issues, future productivity improvement requires a comprehensive approach.

At the American School of Management, management training can be conducted through lectures, small group discussions, case studies, literature readings, business games and role training. Variants of these methods are courses and seminars organized annually on management problems. Another widely used method is job rotation. By moving a line manager from department to department for a period of one month to one year, the organization introduces the new leader to many aspects of the activity. As a result, the young manager learns about the problems of various departments, understands the need for coordination, informal organization and the relationship between the goals of various departments. Such knowledge is essential for successful work in higher positions, but especially useful to managers lower levels management hierarchy.

Japanese organizations resort to rotation much more often than American ones. Professor Ouchi, bestselling author of Theory Z, says, “In Japan, virtually every department has a staff who knows the people, problems, and practices of every part of the organization. When something needs to be coordinated, both sides can understand each other and come to cooperation. Perhaps most important is the fact that each employee knows that throughout his career he will move from one division of the company to another, even located in different geographical locations. In addition, in many Japanese firms, the rotation throughout the working life extends to all its employees. An electrical engineer from the design of circuits can be sent to production or assembly, equipment can be transferred every year to new machines or to other departments, managers can be moved to all branches of the business. When people work all the time in one specialty, they tend to form local goals related only to this specialty, and not to the future of the entire company, they do not have that knowledge of people and problems that would allow them to provide effective assistance to other specialists within your organization."

The main characteristics of the status of the group in the management system and their use in different cultures of the national economy is shown in fig. 7.10.

Japan	USA
Group work as a goal	Group work as a means
Way of life	The path to rationalization
natural behavior	Implemented Behavior
Habit	Consciousness
Efficiency	Performance
Quality and/or way to do better	Way to do it cheaper

Rice. 7.10. main characteristics of group status

In accordance with the foregoing, we can state the following differences in the functioning of Japanese and American firms in the economies of their countries:

in a Japanese firm, more than low degree specialization, compared with the American. The American firm strives for efficiency through high specialization and rigid segregation of duties, while the Japanese firm focuses on the ability of groups of workers to independently solve local problems;

in an American firm, the tasks of coordinating and directing production both on the shop floor and inter-shop levels are clearly separated and specialized, while in the Japanese firm, these two tasks tend to be integrated into one. The absence of a centralized service to control and distribute the flow of materials between workshops is a distinctive feature of the assembly plant of a Japanese company;

in the American firm the size of remuneration of the worker is defined by a category of a workplace. The Japanese firm is trying to stimulate workers through a wage system that takes into account seniority and merit of the latter; promotion of individual workers on the basis of their individual merits; lump sum payments at the time of retirement (incentive system, united by the concept of "lifetime employment");

in a Japanese firm, the behavior of an employee is formed taking into account the need for its compliance with the long-term orientation of the entire organization. The American firm operates in a social atmosphere that promotes equality. Accordingly, workers here are more mobile, easily change their place of work in search of better individual opportunities;

the conclusion of a lifetime contract in the Japanese labor market is characterized by a significantly higher uncertainty relative to the theory of full-fledged labor contracts used in the United States. Their duration can be several years, the work itself under such contracts is standardized under the control of the trade union;

the number of management levels in Japanese industry is more than half that in the American one, which is one of the reasons for higher productivity. Thus, in the Japanese automobile industry, there are only five levels of management compared to 11-12 levels of management in the American automobile industry. Thus, good governance is the reason for Japan's leading role in the field of labor productivity;

Japan's leading position in the global economy has been promoted by three important principles of its production strategy: just-in-time production; using the concept of "do it right the first time"; application of the principle of integrated preventive maintenance;

the use by American firms of the "in-line production" system is the most powerful lever for maintaining the American economy in the leading group of the world's economically developed countries;

in Japanese factories, the responsibility for solving production problems is actually on average more than one step lower in the management pyramid than the level of managers with formal power, which is fundamentally different from the situation in American factories;

the degree of “formal” institutionalization of cross-functional relations is higher among American companies, although in other indicators they show more a high degree hierarchical centralization;

in the United States, the vast majority of collective agreements in the manufacturing industry are reached at the enterprise level, while in Japan agreements at the level of enterprises in one industry are often coordinated by an industry federation of enterprise trade unions.

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

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

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

There are other differences between Japanese and American control systems. In the US, in the management process, the emphasis is on bright personality that can improve the performance of the organization - in Japan, managers are guided by the group and the organization as a whole. In American firms, there are rigid management structures with certain functions, while in Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and eliminated as specific tasks are performed. The main incentive for American workers is the economic factor (money) - for Japanese workers, it is not money that plays a more significant role, but socio-psychological factors (a sense of belonging to a team, pride in the company). Western European and American enterprises are characterized by the presence of moral and psychological prohibitions that hinder the initiative and creativity of workers - Japanese workers are guided by the concepts of internal duty and subordination of their interests to the interests of the team. In crisis situations, American managers try to lay off part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive - in Japanese enterprises there is an unwritten law of the so-called lifelong employment of workers, in which working personnel are considered as supreme value organizations, and consequently, the administration will do everything possible to keep their employees in the most critical situations. American workers under the contract of employment are focused only on the fulfillment of their functional duties- Japanese workers strive not only to fulfill their official duties, but also to do the most useful for their organization, for example, an American foreman or engineer will never do the work of cleaning the workshop, even if he has free time, and a Japanese specialist, having free time from his main activity, will definitely do something useful for his company, as he is focused

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

American workers typically change jobs once every few years, moving to firms that offer them higher wages or Better conditions labor. This is also due to the fact that in the United States only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted in the structure of his organization). It is common practice to retire employees who have been with the company for 20-25 years, even if they have not reached retirement age. In this way, company management seeks to create conditions for career growth of young professionals and keep them in their organization.

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

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

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

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

Comparative characteristics of Japanese and American models of management

§ 4. General principles
government controlled

After the Second World War, Japan quickly moved from a totalitarian-militarist regime to the norms of a legal state based on the principle of separation of powers. In Art. 41 of the Japanese Constitution of 1947 states that "the Parliament is the supreme body state power and the sole legislative body of the state.

The Japanese Parliament consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors, each of which contains up to 20 standing committees. The commissions are composed of deputies from various political parties in proportion to their representation in Parliament. The commissions preliminarily consider the vast majority of draft legislative acts and perform the main legislative work.

Supreme bodies executive power in Japan are the government and the cabinet. The government is formed on the basis of laws on the Cabinet of Ministers and on the organization of the government, adopted by Parliament in 1947 and 1948, respectively. These laws determine the number of ministries and departments, their general structure, quantity government ministers and their deputies, the most general functions, rights and obligations of departments and their heads.

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

The structure, powers, rights, duties, number of administrative apparatus are determined by special laws on the organization of these bodies, adopted by the Parliament. Departments are given the right to create additional units they need, but subject to the limits of the established number limit. Other changes require the approval of Parliament, whose members generally view its growth negatively. Therefore, the number of the bureaucracy itself in Japan is relatively small.

In addition to legislation, an important lever of parliamentary control over the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers and all public institutions Japan is Control and Auditing Council, according to the Constitution, it is independent of the government, including the Ministry of Finance. It consists of an office, a secretariat and 5 departments specialized in

under review financial activities specific ministers and departments. The Council, comprising over 1,200 auditors, annually audits the expenditures of all ministries and departments and establishes their compliance with the budget approved by Parliament. The results of the audit, together with the government's financial report, are submitted to Parliament for consideration. In the presence of any financial abuse or use of public funds for other purposes, the guilty heads of departments and their divisions are held accountable by parliament.

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

According to this law, civil servants are persons who receive a salary from the state, are selected and appointed by the state and receive compensation (pension) from the state. The principles and standards for the selection of civil servants are provided for by the Constitution of Japan, which states that "all people are equal before the law." However, the law states that public service Only persons of Japanese nationality can be accepted.

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

Initial appointment to the civil service is based on competitive examinations or (in some cases) an interview and assessment of the candidate's abilities. Written and oral examinations include an assessment of qualifications and performance, are also held medical examination and other methods are used to objectively assess a candidate's ability to perform official duties. By law, all persons must be allowed to take the exams. equal conditions; sufficient publicity must be ensured during examinations.

The names of those who successfully passed the exams and the points they received are entered into the certificate of the right to civil service. This certificate is valid for 1 year.

Heads of ministries and departments are vested with the right to appoint to positions, and they can delegate these rights to other high-ranking officials of their ministries and departments. The right to temporarily remove from office, reinstatement, dismissal or resignation, as well as the right to impose disciplinary sanctions, belongs to the person who appointed the official to the position.

These rights are governed certain rules. For example, no one can be appointed to a position if he does not meet the requirements of the Law on Civil Servants. Appointment to a position or promotion is conditional for at least 6 months. During this period, the first recruit does not have the status guaranteed for civil servants.

By law, promotions are based on competitive examinations between applicants or (in most cases) performance evaluations.

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

Questions for self-examination

1. Describe the philosophy of Japanese management.

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

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

Literature

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

2. Morita A. Made in Japan. The history of the Sony company. - M .: Uni-vers, 1993.

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

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

Management is carried out in a certain social context that directly affects its character. Obviously, there are different approaches to management in national or continental cultures. Many of the American and Japanese scientific concepts are very productive..

Management schools in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development.

There are certain similarities between them:

they focus on the activation of the human factor (using, however, various forms and methods), constant innovation, downsizing of large enterprises;

they focus on the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise.

At the same time, despite the external similarity, these two models have features due to the specifics of their socio-economic development.

The first difference between the models lies in the setting of social consciousness. The basis of the American system of government is the principle of individualism. That is, the understanding that managers are, first of all, individuals who have certain interests and their own opinion about personal needs.

In the USA, the focus is on a bright personality who can improve the organization's performance. Japan is characterized by the traditional attitude of public consciousness towards collectivism. Managers focus on the group and the organization as a whole. In Japan, the individual merit of the worker is fully attributed to the merit of the firm (although this is now changing), which is not the case in the United States.

Decision-making methods in the American and Japanese models of organization management are also different:

In the United States, there is an individual nature of decision-making. He's faster. The Japanese, on the other hand, are accustomed to solving problems collegially. This reduces the possibility of error, but takes longer.

In Japanese companies, it would never occur to anyone to challenge the boss's decision after the decision has been made. But up to this point, due to collegiality, managers hold meetings with their subordinates, at which they can discuss the proposal, criticize it. The Japanese have the time and opportunity to convince management that an idea is right or wrong. But after the decision is made, whether you were for or against, you must fulfill this decision.

In large corporations with American management, the corporate structure pushes unique people to the top who are ready to take responsibility and risk, since there is no one to consult with. At every level the last word remains behind them. Even without being geniuses, they gain decision-making experience, since the leader always makes the final decision.

When the head of the company is weak in itself, then collegiality plays its positive role, then one can hope for the stability of the system. And the structure of Japanese corporations is stable. Moreover, it is stable in relation to the personal qualities of each specific manager. For example, a person received a specific position, which he does not quite correspond to, and then the collegial system will help him. It's not even about him - the main thing is that the system will survive. Unfortunately, there is also a negative point in this, since a lot of time is spent on all kinds of meetings. Until the solution becomes obvious to everyone, it will be “sucked”. This is one of the reasons why the Japanese stay so long at work. As you know, in Japan they work on Saturdays and even on Sundays. Efficiency in the use of time must be judged by results.

Achievements are judged by individual (in the USA) or collective result (in Japan).

In American companies, the responsibility for failure lies with the person who failed to complete the task. In Japanese firms, the responsibility is collective. They will never allow themselves to let the group down, otherwise they will "lose face" in front of their colleagues.

With regard to control, Japanese firms also exercise collective control and it is informal. In America, the leader personally controls the actions of subordinates, and the control structure is strictly formalized.

A representative of GENERAL in Russia: “In Russian companies, one mistake is often made - they do not give any authority to their employees, but try to strictly demand from them. In Russia, this is quite common. And in Japan, everything is the other way around, where the employee is given great powers, and as long as the employee does everything normally, fulfills the plan, there is no demand from him at all. That is, he can do everything as he sees fit. They begin to call him on the carpet only when there are problems with the implementation of the plan. And in this case they ask: “What are you doing, how are you doing?” This is the fundamental difference."

In American firms, there are rigid management structures with certain functions, there is a rigid division of duties, a rigid job description. A step to the right, a step to the left is not welcomed by the management. And vice versa, if something is suddenly demanded from you in excess of the norm, then you can refuse or ask for a revision of the working conditions in order to formalize it.

In Japan, more flexible management structures are used, created and liquidated as specific tasks are completed. In Japanese companies, this situation is played out differently. A soft transformation can occur when part of the duties of an employee is taken away or, conversely, something is added. And it has nothing to do with salary or bonuses. Of course, a certain level of salary depends on your duties and how you work, which is correlated and aligned with the market.

Relationship between leader and subordinate. In Japan they are informal. In the US, there are formal relationships with subordinates. If a person occupies a position, then he must fulfill his duties regardless of personal qualities. They proceed from the fact that if the head of a department, then this is, first of all, the head of the department, and not Ivan Ivanovich. Personal contacts should not be important. And if a new department head comes, he or she will perform the same functions.

The philosophy of the company in the US may undergo some changes after the replacement of management. This is accompanied by a change in managerial staff and workers. Also, in crisis situations, American managers try to lay off part of the staff in order to reduce the costs of their organization and make it more competitive.

In Japan, with the change of leadership, the philosophy of the company does not change. Personnel remain, as the system of "lifetime employment" operates.

The goals of the firm are individual for different companies, but a general trend can be traced in America and in Japan. In the USA, this is the growth of the company's profit and dividends of individual investors; in the Japanese management model, it is ensuring the growth of profits and the well-being of all employees of the company.

Hiring and personnel policy. The Japanese model of organization management widely uses the work of graduates of universities and schools, retraining and training within the company, on the job. In Japanese companies, training is paid. The content of the work changes as the transition to the production of new products and the use of new technology, so retraining is necessary. New hires usually attend lectures and learn on the job. The most important task is to instill the corporate philosophy and technical skills. The duration of training varies from company to company, but most often it is from three to eight months.

In America, employees are hired on the labor market through a network of universities, business schools, etc. Focus on an individual, personal career.

Regarding remuneration and promotion in the models we are considering, enterprises have different policies. In Japanese, this is, of course, promotion based on seniority and remuneration depending on age and length of service in the company (the so-called equalizing salary). The career of a Japanese specialist is more often of a horizontal nature (for example, a mid-level manager moves to other departments every 4 to 5 years, occupying positions equal in their previous status). This allows the company to improve the system of horizontal links between departments and services, train professionals of a wide profile, solve the problem of interchangeability, and improve the moral climate in the team.

In the United States, when an employee is hired, his suitability for a vacant position is checked using methods such as competition, assessment of knowledge and skills in special “assessment centers”, passing exams for a position. Remuneration of labor and its advancement along the "career" ladder occurs depending on the individual results and merits of the employee. In the United States, only a vertical career is traditionally considered successful (when an employee is promoted in the structure of his organization). Therefore, workers usually change their place of work once every few years, moving to firms where they are offered a higher salary or better working conditions.

Organization of production and labor. In Japan, the following principles apply on this issue: the main attention is paid to the workshop - the lower level of production; the system "just in time" (Kanban) is used without the creation of stocks and backlogs. The work of quality groups (circles) and the implementation of strict quality control at all stages of the production process by all employees of the company. Duties between employees are not strictly distributed, as already mentioned, employees perform different kinds work depending on the situation; motto - "act according to the situation."

In the USA, the focus is not on production, but on adaptation with the external environment. Employees act on the basis of strict execution of job descriptions. Pay rates are strictly defined depending on the position, work performed and qualifications. Salary is set in accordance with supply and demand in the labor market.

IN Lately American corporations began to introduce innovations that led Japanese firms to significant success. However, not all management methods used in Japan take root on American soil. This applies to the system of long-term or "lifelong employment" of workers, the formation of funds from deductions from the company's profits to meet the needs of workers, etc.

Stimulation of employees. In Japan, with a favorable financial situation, bonuses are paid twice a year (each time two to three monthly salaries). Payments and benefits from social funds are made: partial or full payment for housing, expenses for medical insurance and maintenance, contributions to pension funds, delivery to work by company transport, organization of collective recreation, etc.

In America, employee incentives are much lower than in Japan, although the income of the president of a large American corporation is, on average, three times higher than that of the president of a Japanese firm.

financial policy. Part of the profits of the branch of the Japanese company (up to 40%) is used by them independently. The profit is directed to the rationalization of production, to the reduction of material costs and the introduction of new resource-saving technologies, to the modernization of equipment. Borrowing is widespread.

In America, the administration of the company redistributes profits between departments. Expansion of production through the purchase (acquisition, merger) of other corporations. Self-financed corporations.

Each of the models of organization management that we have considered has its pros and cons for a particular culture, a particular country. It is impossible to transfer one management model to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.

Conclusion

1) American management has made a significant contribution to the theory and practice of management. The experience of management and planning in US firms and corporations, taking into account specific conditions and specifics, can be used in practice in large Russian holdings, corporations and joint-stock companies.

2) The Japanese management model has also significantly influenced the theory and practice of management. Firstly, it is a complex of forms and methods of personnel management, used in leading Japanese companies and providing an increased return on hired personnel. These are the recruitment system, remuneration, incentive system and methods, vocational training and advanced training; secondly, the methodology and practice of making and implementing management decisions; thirdly, the system of organizational and managerial measures used to increase labor productivity, production efficiency and product quality. Japanese managers have developed a specific management mechanism that makes more active use of the "human factor" in management, directing the hidden creative abilities of employees to ensure profit maximization.

3) Currently, a new, Russian model of economic management is being formed, and each of its successes or failures has an impact on the standard of living of the population. New terms are being formed, a new understanding of the role of those involved in management. In other words, the image of a modern entrepreneur is beginning to take shape - a person who owns property, uses hired labor, takes on the functions of strategic management in order to maximize profits. A leader of a new type should be based on universal ethical values, master the theory, technique and art of influencing people around him, be open to innovations, to everything new.

Bibliography:

Imai M. - Kaizen: the key to the success of Japanese companies / Moscow 2006.

Kuritsyn A.N. - Secrets effective work: experience of the USA and Japan / Moscow, 2001.

Dokuchaev M.V. - ECO // Problems of Corporate Governance in the USA, 2004 N1.

Klyuchko V.N. - Management in Russia and abroad // Corporate governance in Japan: features, models and development trends, 2006 N2.

Yurlov S., Levitsky P., Bregadze K. - The art of management // Seven "samurai", 2004 N4-5.

TABLE 1 - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT MODELS

Comparison criterion	American management model	Japanese management model	German (European) management model
States where the model is used	USA, UK	Japan	Germany, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, France, Belgium
General characteristics	A significant number of individual shareholders, independent, not related to the activities of the company. The developed legislative framework defines the rights and obligations of participants	A significant number of banks and companies are the shareholders of the corporation.	Participation of banks as long-term shareholders and representatives are elected to the board of directors. Bank financing is preferable to equity financing.
Key contributors	Managers, directors, shareholders, exchanges, government	Key bank and financial industrial network, board, government	Banks, corporations
Shareholding structure	Institutional investors (USA - 60%, UK - 65%), individual investors - 20%	Insurance companies - 50%, foreign investors - 5%, corporations - 25%.	Banks - 30%, corporations - 45%, pension funds - 3%, individual shareholders - 4%
Representation in management (board of directors)	Insiders (persons who work for the company or are closely associated with it) Outsiders (persons not directly related to the corporation) Quantity from 13 to 15 people.	Completely from internal participants. The State may name its representative. Quantity - up to 50 people.	Bicameral Board of Directors: Supervisory Board (representatives of workers and shareholders) and Management Board. The number of members of the Supervisory Board from 9 to 20 people is established by law.
Information transparency requirements	Quarterly report, annual report, including information about the directors, the number of shares they hold, salaries, data on shareholders owning more than 5% of the shares, information and mergers and acquisitions.	Semi-annual report reporting information on the capital structure, Board of Directors meetings, information on proposed mergers, amendments to the charter. The 10 largest shareholders of the corporation are reported.	Semi-annual report indicating the capital structure, shareholders with 5% or more shares, information on possible mergers and acquisitions.
Decisions Requiring Shareholder Approval	Election of directors, appointment of auditors, issue of shares, mergers, acquisitions, amendments to the articles of association.	Payment of dividends, election of directors, amendments to the charter, mergers, acquisitions.	Distribution of income, ratification of decisions of the Supervisory Board and the Board, elections of the Supervisory Board
Relationships and interests of participants	Shareholders may exercise their voting rights by mail or power of attorney without being present at the shareholders' meeting.	Corporations are interested in long-term and affiliated shareholders. Annual meetings of shareholders are formal.	Most German corporation shares are bearer shares. Banks, with the consent of shareholders, dispose of the votes at their own discretion. There is no possibility of absentee voting, the obligatory presence of a shareholder at a meeting or the transfer of this right to a bank.

TABLE 2 - COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND JAPANESE MANAGEMENT MODELS

Japanese management model

American management model

1. Management decisions are made collectively.

2. Collective responsibility.

3. Non-standard, flexible management structure.

4. Informal organization of control.

5. Collective control.

6. Slow evaluation of the employee's work and career growth.

7. The main quality of a leader is the ability to coordinate actions and control.

8. Orientation of actions to the group.

9. Evaluation of management to achieve harmony in the team and the collective result.

10. Personal informal relationships with subordinates.

11. Promotion by seniority and length of service.

12. Training of leaders of a universal type.

13. Remuneration of labor according to the performance of the group, seniority.

14. Long-term employment of the head in the company.

1. Individual nature of decision-making.

2. Individual responsibility.

3. Strictly formalized management structure.

4. Clearly formalized control procedure.

5. Individual control

6. Rapid assessment of the result of labor, accelerated promotion.

7. The main quality of a leader is professionalism and initiative.

8. Orientation of management to an individual.

9. Evaluation of management by individual result.

10. Formal relationship with subordinates.

11. Business career is driven by personal results.

12. Highly specialized managers.

13. Remuneration based on individual achievements.

14. Employment for a short period.

TABLE 3 The main characteristics of the status of the group in the management system and their use in different cultures of the national economy


Group work as a goal	Group work as a means
Way of life	The path to rationalization
natural behavior	Implemented Behavior
Habit	Consciousness
Efficiency	Performance
Quality and/or way to do better	Way to do it cheaper

The study of the American model of management is of known interest. It was in the United States that the science and practice of management was first formed.

American management absorbed the foundations of the classical school founded by Henri Fayol. Americans Luther Gyulik and Lindal Urvik did a lot to popularize the main provisions of the classical school. The classical school had a significant influence on the formation of all other areas in American management theory.

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

Modern American management in its current form is based on three historical premises:

1. The presence of a market.

2. Industrial way of organizing production.

3. Corporation as the main form of business.

The American economist Robert Heilbroner pointed out three main historical approaches to the distribution of society's resources. These are traditions, orders and the market. The traditional approach has in mind the distribution economic resources society through established traditions, from one generation to the next. The team approach implies the distribution of resources through orders. The market approach provides for the distribution of resources through the market, without any public intervention. This approach is the most efficient.

Modern american model management is focused on such an organizational and legal form of private entrepreneurship as a corporation ( Joint-Stock Company), which emerged at the beginning of the 19th century.

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

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

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

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

American scientists continue to set and develop real problems management. The American practice of selecting executives places the main emphasis on good organizational skills, and not on the knowledge of a specialist.

As for Japan, over the past two decades it has taken a leading position in the world market. And 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. At the same time, the Japanese do not consider one person (personality), like Americans, but a group of people.

The Japanese put it 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.

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 managerial process is the study of the nuances of the situation, which allow the manager to make the right decision.

Before the development of the capitalist mode of production in Japan, egalitarian remuneration for labor was inherent in Japan. The formation of machine production required the development of a system of labor motivation, taking into account the existing desire of workers for equalization and the personal contribution of each of them. The way out was found in the development of a system of remuneration of workers by length of service.

The strongest motivation in Japan is the "corporate spirit" of the firm. It is based on the psychology of the group, which puts the interests of the group above the personal interests of individual workers.

Central location in operational management Japanese management takes quality management. In all spheres of the Japanese economy, quality groups (circles) currently operate, which, in addition to workers, include craftsmen and engineers. The Japanese quality management system does not fail. This is the result of her thoughtfulness and simplicity.

In the early 70s. T. Ohno, vice president of the Toyota automobile company, proposed the Kanban labor organization system. Its essence lies in the fact that at all phases of the production process they abandoned the production of products in large batches and created continuous-line production.

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

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

Schools of management in the USA and Japan are currently leading in the world and are considered in other countries as a kind of standard for management development. With polar differences, however, there is a certain similarity between them: both schools focus on the activation of the human factor (using, however, various forms and methods), constant innovation, diversification of manufactured goods and services, downsizing of large enterprises and moderate decentralization of production; they are guided by the development and implementation of long-term strategic plans for the development of the enterprise (although if American managers develop their plans for 5-8 years, then Japanese managers - for up to 10 years or more). At the same time, despite the outward similarity, these two management schools have features due to the specifics of the socio-economic development of their countries.

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

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

Criteria	Japanese model	US model
1. The nature of managerial decision-making	Decision making by consensus	Individual nature of decision-making
2. Responsibility	Collective	Individual
3. Management structure	Non-standard, flexible	severely formalized
4. Nature of control	Collective	Individual control of the head
5. Organization of control	Soft informal control	Clearly formalized rigid control procedure
6. Evaluation of the performance of the head	Slow performance appraisal and career growth	Quick assessment of the result and accelerated promotion
7. Evaluation of the qualities of a leader	Ability to coordinate and control	Professionalism and initiative
	Orientation of management to the group, increased attention to the person	Orientation of management to individual, attention to the person as a performer
9. Evaluation of personnel performance	Achieving a collective result	Achieving individual results
10. Relations with subordinates	Personal informal relationships	formal relationship
11. Career	Promotion based on age, length of service and loyalty to the firm	Business career is predetermined by personal achievements
12. Leadership training	Training of universal leaders	Training of highly specialized managers
13. Pay	Remuneration according to the performance of the group, experience	Remuneration for individual achievements
14. Duration of employment in the company	Long-term employment of the head of the company, lifetime employment	Employment on a contract basis, contractual basis, short-term employment
15. General principle management	"Bottom-Up"	"Top-Bottom"
16. staffing	Lack of clearly defined roles and tasks within the organization	Functional subordination and clear boundaries of authority
17. Professional development	On the job (in the workplace)	Separated, for special training programs

The table shows a comparison of Japanese and American management models, which makes it possible to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each of them.

Another major difference lies in the organization of management itself. At American enterprises, official and production duties are strictly separated, and a higher person controls their use, therefore, a limited range of issues that they are entrusted with are in the field of view of workers and employees. At Japanese enterprises, the personnel who constantly improve their skills are responsible for many important issues of production activities. Thus, government in the US is "hierarchical" while in Japan it is "universal."

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

Scrap rate* and breakdown rate of Japanese cars, televisions, integrated circuits, and other products in ten seconds once again lower than Western products. Comparison of these two concepts testifies to the "myopia" of American installations "(Table 1.3). For example, the reconstruction of a production system or production unit in order to improve quality leads to a short-term increase in production costs, but in the long term, on the contrary, reduces them.

A comparison of Japanese and American management models shows that one management model cannot be transferred to the economy of another country without taking into account its specific conditions and, above all, psychological and socio-cultural factors.

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