The Other Worker: A Comparative Study of Industrial Relations in the United States and Japan 9780824885533

If there are those who believe principles of administration are universal or principles of production can be separated f

187 59 103MB

English Pages 500 [494] Year 2021

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Recommend Papers

The Other Worker: A Comparative Study of Industrial Relations in the United States and Japan
 9780824885533

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

THE OTHER WORKER

THE OTHER WORKER

A Comparative Study of Industrial Relations in the United States and Japan

BY ARTHUR M. WHITEHILL, JR. AND SHIN-ICHI TAKEZAWA

East-West Center Press

Honolulu

COPYRIGHT @

1 9 6 8 B Y EAST-WEST CENTER PRESS

UNIVERSITY OF H A W A I I A L L RIGHTS RESERVED L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD N U M B E R :

67-21409

PREFACE

This book represents an unusual, and in some respects unique, approach to cross-cultural scholarship and research. Over a period of six years the authors, one from the United States and one from Japan, have worked together as equal partners in every phase of a joint investigation—recognition of the problem, research design, field work, analysis and interpretation of data, and publication of results. T h e outcome, we believe, is a study which goes beyond mere acknowledgment of the need for truly cross-cultural research to face-to-face encounter with both the unusual opportunities and the special problems inherent in such studies. T h e field of investigation reported upon here is industrial relations in Japan and the United States. In a sense, the study began with a series of conferences in Tokyo during the summer of 1959, in which academic and business representatives discussed with the authors general relationships between cultural values and workermanagement relations. A limited pilot study followed, which was based upon a questionnaire survey of 283 "permanent," male workers in five Japanese industrial plants. A progress report dealing with this initial study was published in 1961 by the School of Business Administration, University of North Carolina, as Research Paper No. 5, Cultural Values in Management-Worker Relations: "Gimu" in Transition. Reactions to this report were constructively suggestive and sufficiently encouraging to launch the larger-scale two-nation study upon which this volume is based. Four leading companies in each country have co-operated in this work. All are unionized, and each may be thought of as among the pattern setters in its industry. Total participants numbered 2,000 (1,042 from the United States, 958 from Japan), with an approximately equal division between male and female respondents. T h e empirical findings con-

vi

PREFACE

cerning these workers' perception of their relationship with management are interpreted within the institutional aspects of two quite different industrial societies. For those readers who may be seeking in this report something exotic or dramatic in industrial relations, the results will be disappointing. The pervasive influence of certain universals in industrialization already mentioned make this outcome quite unlikely. We have no disclosures concerning either such fanciful characters as the "slaves of capitalism" sometimes portrayed by commentators on the U.S. social system or the "feudalistic serfs" presumed by some observers to be rampant in Japanese society. On the contrary, the findings do portray certain similarities and certain differences in worker perceptions concerning their responsibilities to the company and the company's responsibilities to them. Through analysis and interpretation of these findings, we hope to provide some new insights into industrial relations patterns as they exist in the United States and Japan today and, perhaps, some legitimate basis for predicting future developments. Studies of this scope and intensity depend upon participation of business firms which provide the essential "living laboratory" for systematic research. We feel a deep sense of gratitude to the many individuals who have given generously of their time and thought to a project which, at best, offers only the indirect returns of intellectual stimulation and a somewhat more systematic basis for understanding the human aspects of administration. U.S. firms included Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Youngstown Sheet and T u b e Company, Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, and the Western Electric Corporation. A much appreciaated demonstration of faith and co-operation early in the project was accorded the researchers at Owens-Illinois by Harold F. Mayfield, Director, and Dr. John H. Rapparlie, Industrial Psychologist, Personnel Relations Department, Administrative Division. Executives who assisted at the Company's Fairmont plant, from which participants were drawn include: Carl J . Snyder, Plant Manager; Robert C. Judy, Industrial Relations Director; and Richard E. Kesling, Assistant to Industrial Relations Director. At Youngstown Sheet and Tube, we had the generous co-operation of: Mr. W. H. Yeckley, former Vice-President, Operations; Mr. Herman J . Spoerer, Vice-President, Industrial Relations; Mr. J . R. Bohne, Director of Industrial Relations; Mr. E. O. Reese, General Manager, Operations; Mr. P. W. Schumacher, Director of Training; and Mr. Theodore Patrick, Supervisor of Training, Youngstown District. Those who were of direct assistance to us at Harwood Manufactur-

PREFACE



ing Corporation include: Dr. Alfred J. Marrow, Chairman of the Board; Seymour A. Marrow, President; John R. Nelson, VicePresident of Manufacturing; and Philip C. Smythe, Personnel Director. T o the following Western Electric executives we also extend our gratitude and thanks: William S. Yeager, General Manager, Winston-Salem; W. O. Conrad, Manager, Manufacturing-New Products and Works Service, Winston-Salem; Clyde Meagher, Engineering Service Division, Atlanta, Georgia; Mrs. Elizabeth O'Brien, Computer System Associate, Winston-Salem; and W . S. Mather, now retired from the company. In Japan, the four participating companies were Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. (Asahi Garasu Kabushiki Kaisha), Japan Steel and T u b e Corporation (Nippon Kokan Kabushiki Kaisha), Kanegafuchi Spinning Company, Ltd. (Kanegafuchi Boseki Kabushiki Kaisha), and Hitachi, Ltd. (Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho). Asahi Glass executives who provided direct co-operation were: Ko Yoshino, Works Manager, Makiyama Factory, and Member, Board of Directors; Teizo Matsuzaki, General Director, Glass Operating Division, and Member, Board of Directors; Shin Kakiage, Deputy Director, Personnel Division; and Shigeo Yamaguchi, Manager, Labor Relations Department, Makiyama Factory. Generous guidance and assistance were provided at Japan Steel and T u b e Corporation by Hyuga Orii, Managing Director and Director of Personnel; Shin-ichi Ohgi, General Manager, Labor Department; and Kenji Okuda, Manager of Personnel, Kawasaki Iron Works, who has been closely associated with our work since its beginning. Those individuals who were of direct assistance to us at Kanegafuchi Spinning Company, Ltd., include: Toshihiko Furui, Manager, Silk Spinning Department; Minoru Chikasaka, Plant Manager, Mariko Plant; Hisatoshi Ueyanagi, Office Manager, Takasago Plant; and Toshihiro Okubo, Chief, Personnel Unit, Nerima Plant. Cordial and generous co-operation was also accorded the authors at Hitachi, Ltd., by Keisuke Arai, Director, Personnel Division; Etsuzo Yamashita, Deputy Director, Personnel Division; and Jun Narahara, Deputy Director, Personnel Division. In addition to the foregoing individuals specifically involved in the cross-cultural study, we wish to express our special thanks to Mr. Masu-ichi Honda, former Personnel Director and Member, Board of Directors of the Kokusai Electric Company, Ltd. (Kokusai Denki Kabushiki Kaisha), and now President, Hamden Company, Ltd., of Tokyo, who has served throughout the project as a constant source of assistance and guidance. We want to acknowledge the valuable help of our colleagues

viii

PREFACE

in the H u m a n Problems in Industrial Development project at the Institute of Advanced Projects, East-West Center. Dr. George W . England, Visiting Senior Specialist from the University of Minnesota, has offered numerous helpful suggestions and has enriched our thinking in many ways. In addition, A n t o n i o Arce, KyungD o n g Kim, R y o h j i Koike, and Krishan Ludhera, our current Project Associates, deserve special mention. As members of an international "interest group" committed to a long-range cooperative research program involving the nations which they represent, their contribution to the present volume was careful review and discussion of the manuscript which resulted in many constructive suggestions. Miss Keiko Ishikawa, of R i k k y o University, conducted statistical analyses of data for the study. W e are also indebted to the voluntary assistance of the following students of R i k k y o University w h o conducted questionnaire administration and preliminary analyses of data from Japan: Yohei Amano, Fusako Hori, Keiichi Iwasaki, Motonobu Kikura, T a d a e Matsumoto, Atsushi Okazaki, Shirushi Saito, Isao Sakai, Tatsuaki Sekihara, Masahiro Seto, T e t s u o Shimokawa, Katsuharu Shimosaka, A k i o Suzuki, Ichizo Suzuki, Seii T a i , Hiromu Takeyama, Masato T a n a k a , Ryushi Tanigawa, Takeshi T a n i m u r a , Kozo Uchiyama, Satoshi Yabe, Hitoshi Yamazaki, Ken-ichi Yodonawa, Takeshi Yokoyama, and Yoshihito Onda. In addition to the English version of this work, a Japanese version will be published by Diamond-sha, in T o k y o , Japan. These two editions have been prepared independently, though under the same co-authorship, in order to address audiences most effectively in the two countries. Sources of financial support which made possible the completion of various phases of our research program include: T h e EastWest Center; Business Foundation of North Carolina; American Philosophical Society; Asia Foundation; Fulbright Commission; and the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Since the results of our research will be published at the East-West Center, perhaps we can best express our greetings and thanks to all those individuals sharing in this work with the warm Hawaiian words Aloha and Mahalo. ARTHUR

M.

SHIN-ICHI

Honolulu, Hawaii Tokyo, Japan 1968

WHITEHILL,

TAKEZAWA

JR.

CONTENTS

PART

I

Cross-Cultural Research in Industrial Relations chapter i

Industrialization and Industrial Relations

g Methods for Cross-cultural Study

3

25

3

Background of Industrial Relations in the United States

4

Background of Industrial Relations in Japan PART

68

II

Industrial Relations Problems: A Two-nation Analysis 5

Motivation to Work

6

Employment Commitment

7

Supervisors and Men

8

Status Structure and Work Requirements

q

Rewards and Services

ipo

232

10

Personnel Decisions

11

Role of Labor Unions PART

727

257

276 3/./

III

Industrial Relations in the United States and Japan: A Summary 12

Worker Profiles and Latent Change

3^3

Appendix

A Questionnaire (English Version)

Appendix

B Questionnaire (Japanese Version)

Appendix

c

Characteristics of Sample

Notes Bibliography Index

441

431

403

381 351/

FIGURES AND TABLES

figure

table

1

Cross-cultural Framework for Analysis

2

Motivational Forces in W o r k e r Participation

29

1

Motivational Sources

2

Identity with C o m p a n y

3

Subordination

4

Diligence

5

T e c h n o l o g i c a l Demands

6

Worker-initiated Stress

106 111

2/5

118 122 139

7

Management-initiated Stress

8

External Stress

9

Employee Obligations

143

14J 152

10

A Personal Decision

iyi

11

A n Off-job Situation

176

la

Consultative vs. Unilateral Supervision

180

13

Acceptance of Supervisory A u t o n o m y

185

14

Status and A b i l i t y

207

15

Status in Promotion

16

Senior-worker Behavior

211

17

Temporary-worker Status

18

Sex Status

216 220

226

19

Family W a g e Allowance

so

Bonus Plans

249

255

21

Sick Leave and Benefits

22

Company Housing

260

23

Recreation Programs

24

Levels of W a g e Decisions

25

General Personnel Decisions

26

Involvement in Merit R a t i n g

27

Promotion Decisions

28

N e e d for U n i o n s

29

Strike Support

30

Communication and the U n i o n

266 270 292 297 302

308

327

332 335

INTRODUCTION

T h e present volume represents an attempt to compare the industrial relations systems of the United States and Japan through an institutional-behavioral approach. Significant emphasis is placed both upon the institutional aspects of each system and upon empirical data concerning perception of industrial workers at the plant level in both countries. This balanced emphasis arises from our belief that an industrial relations system is an integral part of the socioeconomic structure of society and, even more specifically, that worker perceptions play an extremely important role in the eventuation of any system of industrial relations. In this brief introduction, we wish to present some of the more important assumptions that have guided our quest for understanding of all industrial workers and the systems of industrial relations within which they must live and work. There are certain assumptions on which we are quite confident of our agreement. As partners in a joint project, we have necessarily shared certain common frames of reference in our research venture. On the other hand, as social scientists from different cultural backgrounds, we have frequently encountered and struggled with dissimilarities. By definition, a research program involving multiple cultures must reject a single framework based solely upon the experience accumulated within one of the societies involved. Unless some degree of detachment exists between the research framework and all the cultures under investigation, a study claiming to be cross-cultural will result merely in the imposition of ethnocentrism. In this research program involving two cultures, we have tried to recognize the need for a third, a rather neutral, frame of reference which will be useful in exploring worker perceptions of industrial relations in the United States and Japan. Throughout the volume, a consistent effort has been made to maintain this sort of cross-cultural framework.

xii

INTRODUCTION

I n d u s t r i a l relations is p r i m a r i l y an a p p l i e d field in w h i c h the parties i n v o l v e d — m a n a g e m e n t , workers, a n d g o v e r n m e n t — s e e k solutions to practical problems. T h e logic of each interest g r o u p t o w a r d others is problem-centered a n d action-oriented. I n this v o l u m e , we shall attempt to p r o v i d e practitioners of industrial relations i n each society w i t h clues—as suggested by the analysis—reg a r d i n g the n a t u r e of the more pressing problems a n d their possible solutions. E f f o r t s w i l l be m a d e to reconcile a cross-cultural a p p r o a c h w i t h the action-oriented v i e w p o i n t . I n this introduction, f o u r objectives are pursued. First, we shall seek to d e v e l o p briefly a concept of industrial relations system w h i c h w i l l be u s e f u l t h r o u g h o u t the v o l u m e . O u r discussion here w i l l be l i m i t e d i n length, since the chapter that f o l l o w s deals more rigorously w i t h this subject. Second, w e shall d e v e l o p the concept of equilibrium and change i n industrial relations. R e l e v a n t questions dealt w i t h include the m a n n e r i n w h i c h patterns of industrial relations d e v e l o p a n d survive i n a culture, a n d the means b y w h i c h c o n t i n u a l changes are b r o u g h t about i n such patterns. T h i r d , w e shall seek to c l a r i f y the focus of the present study o n the basis of the f o r e g o i n g concepts. I n so doing, a n e x p l a n a t i o n w i l l be o f f e r e d as to h o w a study such as ours can be of specific v a l u e i n the industrial d e v e l o p m e n t of a society. F i n a l l y , a brief preview of the volume w i l l be g i v e n to a i d the reader i n understanding the over-all design of the study as the various chapters unfold. Industrial Relations System I n this study, the term "industrial relations system" refers basically to the integral p a t t e r n of m u t u a l a c c o m m o d a t i o n a m o n g three " a c t o r s , " n a m e l y , workers, m a n a g e m e n t , a n d g o v e r n m e n t , i n a n industrial society. H o w e v e r , w e are p r i n c i p a l l y concerned w i t h the p a t t e r n of relationships i n industrial organizations between the first two actor g r o u p s — w o r k e r s a n d m a n a g e m e n t . W e e m p l o y the term " s y s t e m " because industrial relations represents a relatively i n d e p e n d e n t , tightly k n i t set of interactions a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s a n d groups, the p r i n c i p a l components of the " s y s t e m , " w h e t h e r at the p l a n t , enterprise, industry, o r n a t i o n a l level. A system of industrial relations is created p r i m a r i l y through industrialization, a n d is a f u n c t i o n of ( 1 ) the inherent logic of industrialization (industrial demands) a n d (2) the relevant traditional a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y context of the g i v e n culture (cultural demands). T h e effect of inherent industrial d e m a n d s u p o n indus-

INTRODUCTION

xiü

trial relations systems is in many respects universal, continuous, and accumulative. Some industrial demands may be manifested in such specific goals as productivity, loyalty, diligence, and creativity of workers in industrial organizations. Others, however, may be better expressed in relative terms. For example, a proper balance may be sought between excessive mobility and stability in employment, co-operation and competition among workers, centralization and decentralization of authority, and specialization and generalization in division of work. Industrial demands may or may not be entirely compatible with the cultural demands, or contextual forces that affect a system of industrial relations. Some cultural demands may be supportive of, while others may be in direct conflict with (or at least irrelevant to), inherent industrial demands. It should be recognized, of course, that in an industrial society, cultural demands are themselves subject to constant change as a result of the industrialization process. The result of this reciprocal action between the imperatives of culture and industrialization is a constant renewing of the context of industrial relations in each society. Within this context of mutual interaction and constant change, therefore, the pattern of the industrial relations system in a given society at any given time represents the net result of the perception, evaluation, and mutual accommodation of workers, management, and government. Assuming that these principal parties are composed of intelligent and able individuals striving for the best accommodative balance possible, the industrial relations system prevailing in a society will represent the most rational pattern obtainable under prevailing circumstances in the sense that ends are pursued which are viewed as possible within the conditions of the situation. Such rationality in industrial relations, naturally, is not always realized at the enterprise, industry, or national level. It should be pointed out, however, that when a number of nations are compared, variations among industrial relations systems do not necessarily imply "failure" of any one system in the sense of deviation from a given, or "best," model. T h e effectiveness of a particular industrial relations system lies more in the degree of achieved accommodation compatible with the economic and social goals of the society than in conformity with prevailing patterns in the most industrially advanced nations. Thus the patterns of industrial relations prevailing in different nations may vary substantially and yet be equally effective and appropriate in the respective situations.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

Equilibrium

and Changes in Industrial

Relations

Viewed as a system, then, industrial relations represents a relatively stable pattern of interactions among participating groups. But, like all aspects of social relations, it is also a dynamic process, in the sense that the pattern is subject to constant forces for readjustment. A cross-sectional analysis tends to overemphasize the "system" aspects of industrial relations while neglecting the "process" aspects. This point deserves particular attention in cross-cultural analyses, which often lack sufficient time perspective to evaluate properly the various forces in society which shape and reshape the patterns of industrial relations. Under normal circumstances, a fair degree of equilibrium exists in any system of industrial relations, representing the conditions of balance previously described. This equilibrium reflects, for example, the balance of power relationships among the parties involved, whose respective positions are in turn subject to the logic of industrialization as well as cultural demands. When a pattern is structured, it tends to persist and maintain its stability through selfperpetuation. But, from time to time, some contingency is likely to develop and create certain tensions which, in turn, will threaten the existing state of equilibrium. Many illustrations could be cited of such events leading to disequilibrium. For example, principal actor groups may change in organization, membership, size, ideological orientation, or strength. Whatever the cause, the resulting gain or decline in the power of one group will create disequilibrium and affect the whole configuration of industrial relations. However, except in times of emergency, such as war, revolution, and economic crisis, the shift in role and status of parties in industrial relations is apt to be a gradual one. New patterns of interactions are more likely to emerge in response to an accumulation of more predictable evolutionary pressures. For example, a shift in the political power structure of society may alter the balance among groups. Or new labor, material, and product market conditions may exert pressures upon management to modify the way in which it has dealt with workers. Changes in education and family systems, in living standards and other social conditions also create disequilibrium in industrial relations, though their impact usually is less dramatic and abrupt than the impact of political or economic changes. Since various shifts in context seem destined to occur on a continuous basis, some degree of disequilibrium in industrial relations is likely to be

INTRODUCTION

XV

the rule. In short, there are likely to be continual pressures to which the principal parties must adjust in their mutual accommodation process. Both as individuals and institutions, the three actors in industrial relations must perceive and appraise their relative positions and the state of their environment continuously, so that each may intelligently redefine its attitudes and policies in a manner which will tend to restore equilibrium and order in the industrial relations system. Failure to do so will further magnify the forces of disequilibrium, and is likely to result in serious industrial conflict, social unrest, and perhaps even complete collapse of an economy. In some extreme situations, drastic and costly action, such as a revolution or a coup, too often appears to be the only effective solution. Focus

of the Present

Study

The present cross-cultural study deals with industrial relations both as a system and as a process. From the first point of view, we regard the present state of industrial relations in each culture as a self-sufficient system tending toward equilibrium. We have found many differences between the United States and Japan, and many similarities. These we have tried to analyze in a manner that will result in a better understanding of each system through the mirror provided by the other. In this respect, the worker perception data we have gathered through a questionnaire survey bear particular significance. Since industrial workers represent an important actor group, their perceptions comprise a significant source of pressure in any industrial relations system. As such, worker perceptions can provide certain insights in an area thus far dealt with primarily by social scientists with a more institutional orientation. We make no claim that such perceptual data are the most important or the most reliable source of insight concerning industrial relations problems. Neither do we wish to underestimate the role that various institutional disciplines play. On the contrary, we believe that true understanding in this complex phase of human affairs necessitates integration of knowledge from various disciplines. We realize that such a task is both difficult and risky at best. The chapters which follow will allow the reader to appraise whatever success we have achieved in this integration of perceptual data with findings of other scientific disciplines. Analysis of the "process" aspect of industrial relations in each

xvi

INTRODUCTION

society is especially helpful in dealing with two basic aspects of the study. First, such analysis can provide some answers as to why, in each culture, we find the particular pattern of industrial relations which does exist. Obviously, the historical material found in Chapters 3 and 4, though necessarily brief, represents our major effort in this direction. Even such a limited treatment of the evolutionary process should prove to be helpful in providing an indispensable time perspective in analysis. Second, the "process" approach is especially significant in identifying and evaluating underlying symptoms of disequilibrium in a prevailing system of industrial relations. Since disequilibrium is the central cause of future changes, identification of such symptoms is of paramount importance to the principal actors in an industrial society. Findings of this study suggest three different sources of pressure toward disequilibrium, which, in turn, is likely to result in tensions and remedial changes. Though merely mentioned here, they will be discussed at much greater length in Parts II and III as they apply to the systems of industrial relations in the United States and Japan. 1. Gaps in perceptions among different worker groups concerning those industrial relations practices which they consider most desirable may be a source of considerable tension, and hence may be indicative of future change. Such perceptual differences, reflecting differing interests and value orientation, may cause conflicting patterns of worker behavior among groups. These behavior conflicts are a potential source of friction and disequilibrium in the industrial relations system. 2. Differences in worker perceptions and management practices in industrial relations may also cause pressure for changes in the system of industrial relations. Such differences may be reconciled either by changes in worker perceptions or by modifications in management practices. When the environmental context supports worker perceptions, it is more likely that changes will have to take place in management practices. If, on the other hand, practices are more in line with contextual demands, then worker perceptions will be more likely to adapt in order to restore equilibrium. 3. Even when perception-practice differences do not exist, gaps may be noted between contextual forces and perceptionpractice patterns. Even though no obvious signs of disequilibrium may be observed in worker-management relations, underlying environmental forces can often exert even more pressure than internal conditions upon industrial relations. Therefore, such gaps fre-

INTRODUCTION

Xvii

quently are useful indicators of changes which may take place in an industrial relations system. It is not our intention to set up here ideal models of present or future industrial relations systems. T h e systems found in the United States and Japan each have unique features, with each possessing some potential for change. Nevertheless, utilizing the limited data currently available, we have been able to identify certain sources of potential disequilibrium in each nation. From this standpoint, the volume should prove of interest to practitioners as well as scholars in the field. A Preview T h e first chapter in this volume discusses the process of industrialization and its impact on the growth of industrial relations systems. Major functional areas of industrial relations are also discussed as they relate to the analysis in Part II. Some typical assumptions are examined concerning how a pattern of industrial relations emerges and is related to the cultural demands in society. Chapter 2 primarily covers the framework and methodology of the present study. T h e rationale for our focus upon worker perceptions is followed by a discussion of methods employed in data collection in the United States and Japan. Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to the historical development of industrial relations in the United States and Japan, respectively. Political, economic, social, and cultural backgrounds, and their relevance to change in industrial relations patterns, are discussed. Part II, which includes Chapters 5 to 11, examines specific aspects of industrial relations in the United States and Japan. Included are such functional areas as motivation to work, employment commitment, supervisors and men, status systems, remuneration and rewards, personnel decisions, and labor unions. For each area, the discussion is developed according to the following outline: a) a theoretical analysis of the specific topic; b) present practices, and the environmental context of industrial relations in the United States and Japan; c) worker perceptions of industrial relations related to the practice and context of each society; d) summary. T h e final chapter presents a summary, or profile, of worker perceptions concerning the industrial relations system in each of

xviii

INTRODUCTION

the two countries studied. An attempt is made here to develop a theory which may account for the observed differences in the "system" aspects of industrial relations in the two societies. Finally, from a "process" point of view, each system is examined with respect to sources of disequilibrium and the nature of possible change.

Chapter

i

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

If there is a single characteristic that dominates the face of the world today, it is industrialization—an inevitable, pressing force which becomes more urgent with each passing year. There are many stations along the several alternate roads leading to a highly industrialized society. Some nations are hurrying along the early sections, others are struggling at later stages with both the burdens and privileges of leadership. None have reached the end of the road; indeed, the end has yet to be seen. But there is no stopping, and there can be no complacency concerning progress. For, in the future as in the past, a nation's relative achievement in the industrial segment may be the crucial factor in determining its strength and standing in the world community.

THE INDUSTRIALIZATION

PROCESS

Just what is meant by industrialization? Quite obviously, the foundation upon which industrialization rests is the machine. Only when machinery, driven by central sources of mechanical power, appears in a society can it be said that industrialization is under way. T h e steam engine, power loom, and spinning machines were early technological developments for which the surge of industrialization had to wait. Improved roads, expanded domestic and foreign trade, and a political and social environment not hostile to economic and technological growth were further prerequisites. Most modern writers agree that industrialization is a process rather than a state. Yet there is neither an official definition nor even widespread agreement as to criteria which should determine the relative degree to which the process of industrialization has advanced in different societies. A concept developed by Reinhard Bendix, which refers both to the authority structure within single

4

T H E OTHER

WORKER

enterprises and to national industrial composition, is perhaps the most useful for our purposes, and will be adhered to in this study. Bendix states that "the term 'industrialization' is used to refer to the process by which large numbers of employees are concentrated in single enterprises and become dependent upon the directing and coordinating activities of entrepreneurs and managers." By large numbers, Bendix refers to "any number of employees in excess of that which still permits a face-to-face relationship between employer and employee." 1 This single-enterprise approach focuses attention upon the important relationship between industrialization and bureaucratization. Bendix goes on to say that: " A country may be said to enter an advanced stage of industrialization once less than 50 per cent of its gainfully occupied population is engaged in primary production (agriculture, forestry, and fishing)." 2 Although somewhat arbitrary in nature, this standard seems to be satisfactory as a rough indicator of those nations throughout the world which have entered a fairly mature stage of industrialization. Commenting on this phenomenon, Colin Clark gives as the most important concomitant of economic progress "the movement of working population from agriculture to manufacture and from manufacture to commerce and services." 3 A n important aspect of the industrialization process is that it is one of diffusion rather than independent discovery and, as a result, tends to be cumulative in nature. Great Britain, in 1841, was first to enter an "advanced stage of industrialization," according to Bendix's criterion. France reached this stage before 1866 and Germany about 1870. But the United States did not attain the halfway mark until 1880, and it was not until 1930 that J a p a n met this criterion. 4 T h e fraternity of such nations continues to increase, and it is not unrealistic to anticipate the approach of a basically different context within which the problems of the world must be settled—a context which has been characterized as "the age of total industrialization." 5 Motivating

Forces

There are many reasons for the irresistible pressure of this movement toward a world-wide industrial order. At the individual level, a powerful motivational force is the insistent pursuit by every human being of material wealth and happiness. T o increasing numbers of people, industrialization means not only the ac-

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

5

cumulation of the "things" associated with a more comfortable life, but also higher educational achievement, better health, more personal security, and increasing leisure to make possible the enjoyment of all these advantages. T h a t "economic man," in a strictly cash sense, is dead none can deny. Yet, we have learned and relearned the inescapable fact that "intelligent selfishness," in the sense of a determination to improve one's own absolute and relative living standard, is a very powerful motivational force. Transferred from the individual to national levels, we find much the same sort of aspirational forces. T h e nations of the world are far from agreement as to the best means to achieve their goals. Yet, it seems reasonable to say that every nation strives toward a common goal of improving the welfare of its citizens. Furthermore, there seems to be an almost universal equation of improved welfare with an advanced stage of industrialization. In addition to the "constructive" pressure, there is also the "protective" pressure of economic nationalism. T h e desire for national self-sufficiency has many facets—economic, social, political, and military. Because nationalism in the modern world demands an advanced industrial complex for its support, it contributes to industrialization. A closely allied reason, particularly among major nuclear powers, is the competition to produce fantastically more complex and devastating weapons, in ever greater quantities, as the arms race continues. Finally, the spread of industrialization has been accelerated by greatly increased economy and ease in the interchange of people and ideas. Communication, in its broadest sense, may be thought of as the sharing of understanding. Illustrations of media which in recent years have contributed to such interchange among regions and nations include jet travel, television, cultural exchange in the performing arts, and the use of communication satellites. T h e insulation of time and distance is thawing rapidly. In its place has developed first a curiosity and then an appetite for the things and the ways of thinking characteristic of cultures quite different from our own. Results Discussions concerning the results of industrialization are seldom conclusive and almost always emotional. Optimists tend to stress the bumper harvest of material goods and services made possible by industrialization. Pessimists, on the other hand like to focus upon the loss of individuality and creativity they see in a

6

T H E OTHER

WORKER

mass-production society. Reference is made to the U.S. "split-level class" of industrial suburbia, or Japanese "danchi-zoku" (new middle-class residents in National Corporation apartments) with its stifling conformity and enforced mediocrity. T h e argument somehow seems futile, and certainly will not be continued here. What can be said with assurance is that industrialization has broadened the range of possible destinies available to mankind. A t one extreme, it has provided the means for a level of well-being and comfort never before dreamed of among men; at the other extreme, it has provided the tools for complete annihilation of the human race. This fact alone should assure for industrialism a central role in the social theory and political philosophy of our times. A parallel may be drawn in the matter of human relationships. Here, too, the range has been broadened by the impact of industry. T o the traditional relationships created by family and community have been added a whole new set of relations arising from the concentration of large numbers of people in complex organizational structures. Many terms have been developed to label these relationships and the functions associated with them. Among the more popular are "industrial relations," "personnel relations," "labor relations," "personnel management," and "human relations" in business. There is less than full agreement as to the most appropriate meaning to be attached to each of these labels. In this book, we shall use the term "industrial relations" because it reflects our interest in all those human relationships which arise from, and are associated with, an industrial society. Such relations are not the same as familial relations—though extension of the latter to industry may be identified to varying degrees throughout the world. Nor are such relations coterminous with those of master and servant—though, again, some extension of the latter to the industrial complex may be observed. Instead, we wish to think of industrial relations as a new set of human relations which are uniquely associated with the industrial process. These become increasingly critical throughout the world as vast new numbers of people find themselves enmeshed in the inevitable encroachment of industrialization upon more simple forms of society. What are some of the signals which herald the emergence of industrial relations? What are the basic components of industrial relations in modern society? And, finally, how can these new rela-

INDUSTRIALIZATION

AND I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S

7

tionships be rationalized and systematized most effectively for the benefit of mankind? Is there one best way to achieve such rationalism? Or must we face the fact that industrial relations will always remain both an art and a science, and, in this dual capacity, will continue to defy complete rationalization? It is to these questions that the remaining sections of this chapter are devoted. E M E R G E N C E OF I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S Quickly and surely reflecting the process of industrialization, a whole new set of human relationships and problems emerges to influence the thinking and behavior of individuals and the groups which they create. Industrial relations has been simply, yet broadly, defined by J . T . Dunlop as "the complex of interrelations among managers, workers, and agencies of government." 6 In this book, however, industrial relations will refer to interrelations between the industrial organization (or its management), on the one hand, and employees (or their union representative), on the other. We have chosen to relegate one of Dunlop's actors—agencies of government—from an active role to the context of environment. This seems necessary because the study is concerned primarily with the perceptions of non-supervisory production workers to whom "government," at whatever level, remains quite abstract compared with "the company" or "management." It may be helpful now to examine some of the environmental aspects of an emerging industrial relations system. Expansion

of Organization

Size

A necessary accompaniment to industrialization is substantial growth in the size of organizations. Application of power to the production process, completely new production methods, expansion of markets, improvements in transportation and communication, and vast new reservoirs of risk capital all contribute to pressures upon owners and managers to increase company size. It is not desirable here to describe in detail the many ramifications in technical and human developments accompanying large size and the resulting concentration of power. Only a few such manifestations which seem most relevant to the emerging pattern of industrial relations will be mentioned. One underlying aspect of an emerging industrial society, one which seems to shape the character of almost every human problem arising from it, is the enforced separation of production workers

8

T H E OTHER WORKER

from the finished product. A thoughtful article on employee motivation points out that "the old time craftsman, developing his product from the raw materials stage, has given way to the complex of machines and subassemblies which are so important a part of today's mass production industries. The worker on a machine or on an assembly line now has little identity with the finished product." 7 Workers are not alone in the impersonalization of industrial relations which accompanies large organizational size. Bureaucratization flourishes as first middle management and then lowermiddle and upper-middle management layers are needed. Earlier, rather simple division of work yields to ever lengthening lines of command, increasing specialization, and the narrowing of responsibility delegated to the individual. Furthermore, technological change and new capacities, such as those created by electronic computers, encourage the undertaking of activities never before considered feasible. Such additional activities require ever larger organizations, and thus the cumulative process of industrial growth continues. The central purpose here is to emphasize that large size and concentration of power, in themselves, create new human problems and relationships to which individuals must respond. The ways in which they respond will significantly affect the character of an industrial relations system, whether reference is made to a subsystem of a national society, a system of industry-wide scope, or to a single industrial enterprise. Growth

of

Unions

Large-scale organization, vast capital accumulation, and the concentration of power among employers resulted in a new dimension—the creation and growth of labor unions—which has touched every aspect of industrial relations. An unfortunate imperative of complex industrial organization is the inevitable impersonalization of employer-employee relations referred to earlier. As growth proceeds, the individual worker becomes lost in the bureaucratic shuffle and, as a result, seeks representation of his own. Just as large corporate size and division of labor are responses to the industrialization process, so is growth of a labor movement. While often described in terms which imply that they are substitute devices created to fill a void caused by management neglect, we prefer to think of unions as one important manifestation of the changes in social and work relationships which must accompany

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

g

the process of industrialization. Rather independent of the success or failure of management in its personnel relations program, employee representation in unions seems to be a natural response to both economic and psychological problems caused by the confrontation of labor and capital. 8 Organizations of workers have shown their viability without reference to a particular form of political organization. For example, while confrontation of a labor class and a management class are, in theory, incompatible with a communist ideology, we do find such organizations as the Factory T r a d e U n i o n Committees in the Soviet Union. It would seem that collective organization of workers rests on certain bases which may be quite independent of either management philosophy or political ideology. In any event, the existence of powerful group representation of employees, with bargaining power equal to that of employers, has had an impact upon the character of industrial relations. For example, difficult problems associated with the "dual allegiance" thus created must be faced and dealt with by industrial relations practitioners and scholars. In addition, we find in the powerful leaders of organized labor a "new industrial elite" whose voices are heard not only in conference rooms but in the halls of government as well. Labor

Legislation

T h e organized labor movement, which arises in response to the pressures and problems of industrialism, speaks for millions of members directly, and for many additional millions of workers indirectly. Its voice, therefore, is heeded not only by owners and managers of business corporations but by legislators. In some societies, the passage of labor laws to protect the interests of workers clearly arises from the pressure and influence of active labor organizations. O n the other hand, in some cultures protective labor legislation precedes the emergence of an organized labor movement. In either event, a further concomitant of a maturing industrialization is an increasing concern with an appropriate legal framework within which labor-management negotiations can fairly and most effectively take place. It is through such a framework that the influence of government in industrial relations is most clearly seen. W h i l e labor laws vary widely among nations, and among states within nations, nonetheless it is possible to identify three general types of statutes which significantly affect the character of

10

THE OTHER WORKER

industrial relations. Typically, the first such laws to appear are those of a protective nature, usually dealing with minimum wages, maximum hours, and other physical conditions of work. A second group of labor laws provides devices and procedures for the conduct of negotiations and the adjudication of disputes. Finally, and of increasing significance, is the whole body of social legislation which, while not always confined to labor alone, nevertheless represents a response to the social problems of an industrial civilization. There is little doubt that the trend is toward an increasing role for central governments in the field of labor relations. It is of interest in this connection to recall Dunlop's elaboration on the possible roles to be played by government, the third actor in his concept of all industrial relations systems. He says: The specialized government agencies as actors may have functions in some industrial-relations systems so broad and decisive as to override the hierarchies of managers and workers on almost all matters. In other industrialrelations systems the role of the specialized governmental agencies, at least for many purposes, may be so minor or constricted as to permit consideration of the direct relationships between the two hierarchies without reference to governmental agencies. . . . But in every industrial-relations system these are the three actors.9

The increasing role of government appears to be a natural characteristic of industrialization. As Harold S. Roberts points out in his introduction to a volume of papers dealing with industrial relations in various Pacific-Asian countries, "as social problems become more complex, and as economic life grows more variegated, the impact and scope of government intervention in social and economic affairs of necessity increases." Recognizing the threat which some see in such a trend, Roberts expresses the opinion that "notwithstanding the increase of apparently authoritarian practices, basic human rights and individual freedoms are not significantly encroached upon. Indeed, vital democratic practices are consciously being safeguarded." 10 We would agree that, to varying degrees, government is a third party to most labor-management negotiations. Furthermore, it is quite likely that the influence of more extensive governmental interference is to encourage greater uniformity in industrial relations philosophy and practices. Last, and quite obvious, is the resulting bureaucratization with its multitude of forms and procedures to be followed—thus creating a whole new army of experts

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

11

skilled in manipulating such forms and living with such procedures. A New

Profession

In earlier times, when relatively few people were enmeshed i n industrial relationships and, for those who were, such relations were rather direct and informal, there was no need for full-time specialists or experts in the field. But in most relatively advanced industrial societies that time is long past. A s a result of the developments just noted, plus other aspects of a maturing industrialism, demands have become so complex and extensive that full-time career specialists in industrial relations are required by most large and medium-sized firms. It is not surprising, therefore, that we often hear references to the industrial relations "profession." Yet the term should be used with care. T h e r e is still ample evidence to support the feeling that this is a very young profession, indeed, and that it will be some time before it can claim stature equal to such established professions as medicine and law. 1 1 T h e r e are several rather unique characteristics of this youthful profession. For example, many practitioners in the field come from a wide variety of other professions and vocations. One writer points this up: Among the staff heads and assistants referred to earlier, only 50 per cent of those with college training (32 of the 36 officers) were occupied with duties related to their specialized training. E.g., the head of the industrial relations staff had a B.S. degree in aeronautical engineering; his assistant had a similar degree in chemical engineering. Considering that staff officers are assumed to be specialists trained to aid and advise management in a particular function, the condition presented here raises a question as to what the criteria of selection were. 12 In addition, industrial relations is still considered by many to be an "area" rather than a "discipline," and is criticized as not having a theory and methodology distinctly its own. It is quite true that, of all professions, industrial relations has been, and must remain, strongly interdisciplinary in nature. A n d yet, quite a substantial body of theory and a respectable resource of literature of a specialized nature are appearing. Industrial relations as a career is increasingly characterized by high standards, careful definition of responsibility, and considerable investment of time and effort in preparation for actual practice in the field. As these developments

12

T H E OTHER

WORKER

become more widely spread, there is little doubt that industrial relations will deserve fully the appellation of profession. International

Interchange

One of the accompaniments to spreading industrialism is the diffusion of interest in, and facilities for, the interchange of relevant information, attitudes, and practices among nations of the world. An example of such interchange was the considerable impact upon industrializing nations of early labor and social movements in Great Britain and Europe, the imprint of which can still be seen in contemporary industrial relations. The exchange of labor leaders was one of the earliest forerunners of the various "exchange-of-persons" programs so prevalent today. Such top-level agencies as the International Labour Organisation, now related to the United Nations, have been influential especially in shaping the course of industrial relations as nations enter the early formative stages of industrial growth. Certainly, such organizations can speed the flow of knowledge concerning relevant philosophy and practices throughout the world. In addition, professional associations in the field increasingly represent interests beyond national boundaries. International meetings and stimulation of research and publications on a world-wide basis— not only by universities but by government, labor, and management groups as well—become more commonplace each year. Appeal to such international instruments, both public and private, in shaping the course of industrial relations systems is likely to continue in the future. Yet, such interchange cannot be considered an unqualified blessing. In too many cases, anxiety is the outgrowth of the desire to undertake certain policies and practices which simply are not appropriate in a culture other than that of their own origin. It is essential that all those concerned with international interchange heed the advice of one authority who warns that we must distinguish between "the behavior that is possible for a country and behavior which we as a nation might want that country to adopt, but which is impossible given its situation and particular cultural pattern." 13 Frustration on the part of those attempting to instigate change and anxiety on the part of those attempting to assimilate change are likely to result unless cross-cultural understanding, based on careful research, is achieved. In those situations in which changes are made prematurely and without sufficient insight or understanding, confusion and ultimate rejection can easily result.

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

BASIC F U N C T I O N S I N I N D U S T R I A L

lg

RELATIONS

In the preceding section, a number of environmental developments which accompany, and exert a significant influence upon the character of, industrial relations were reviewed. Now we would like to focus attention upon some of the specific industrial relations functions that have developed in response to efforts to facilitate the adjustment of individuals to the special demands of their work environment. In connection with each function, several important and as yet unresolved questions will be raised. It is on such questions that the present report seeks to shed some additional knowledge and insight. Motivation to Work T h e basic function of motivation at all levels of organization is, perhaps, the most fundamental and challenging in industrial relations. One authority's opinion, which does not seem to be an overstatement, is that "individuals must somehow be motivated to play organizational roles, to play them properly and at the proper time, to abide by the principles of the authority system, to recognize the system of status. Unless these conditions are met, the organization will disintegrate." 14 T h e complexities of motivation, particularly its relationships to the whole hierarchy of human needs, cannot be explored here. More will be said about this in Chapter 5. For the present, it may be sufficient to think of motivation as the willingness of an individual member of an organization, in seeking attainment of his own needs, to voluntarily equate them with, or subordinate them to, achievement of organizational goals. Stated another way, "the essence of motivation is stimulating people to action toward the accomplishment of objectives which may or may not be compatible with their own objectives." As such, "motivation is a management function. It stimulates people to accomplish company goals." 1 5 It is abundantly clear that each industrial organization is an entity above and beyond the composite of individuals comprising it. T h e organization itself has certain objectives and goals to achieve which can be coterminous with individuals' goals but more frequently seem to be perceived as being at best different from, and at worst in open conflict with, the latter. A significant function in industrial relations is to so motivate

14

T H E OTHER

WORKER

workers and managers that each individual in effect merges his personality with the organization. T o the extent that each individual can be encouraged to identify company goals with personal objectives, the forces of co-operation will be maximized and the high costs of frustration, tension, and conflict kept to a minimum. Many questions need further exploration in this crucial area. There is as yet no universally valid response to the basic question, "Why do men work?" We would also like to know more about the role of "organizational tone" and work environment in motivation. How do workers really feel about such organizational imperatives as rules and regulations, quantity and quality of output, and increasing automation? These are but a few of the intriguing questions which probe the sources and function of motivation within an industrial society. Employment

Commitment

Employment of an individual by a company provides both context and continuity in industrial relations. This is the function which formally links the individual to the firm. And it is only through successful management of this function that maximum employee contribution to the accomplishment of organization goals may be achieved. Employment of a worker by a firm is consummated through a series of procedures. First the employment needs of the company must be analyzed. T h e n recruitment, selection, training, and placement of employees who can best fill these needs will be undertaken. Finally, efforts will be made, through the provision of adequate work conditions and incentives, to retain such employees as long as they are needed. T h e degree of commitment to continue the valuable employment relationship thus created is determined by many considerations. On strictly economic grounds, a company would continue employment of workers only so long as they attain predetermined standards of performance and a need prevails for their services. Workers, on the other hand, would be expected to shift readily to employment offering optimum pay and working conditions. But the degree of commitment to a continuing employment relationship is conditioned by far more than economic considerations. For example, full employment is a widely recognized national goal among industrialized nations. Social pressure, both at national and community levels, is exerted upon employers to stabilize employment. Legal penalties, such as special taxation of em-

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

15

ployers with poor records of employment stability, also effect management decisions in this area. From the employee's viewpoint, such considerations as status, promotional opportunities, family and community ties, and many others will modify theoretical mobility. Within each industrial society, management must constantly seek answers to many questions which are relevant to decisions concerning employment commitment. What do workers really think are the responsibilities of management in providing continuity of employment during periods of slack business and declining profits? What should be done about workers who, though willing, turn out to be unqualified to meet the changing work needs of an organization? And of special significance at the present time, what can be done, if anything, to accommodate to and benefit from spreading automation while at the same time maintaining relatively full and stable employment? Supervisors and

Men

A further essential function in an industrial relations system is the creation and maintenance of a formal hierarchy best suited to organizational needs. Even simple organizations demand that certain individuals be placed above others in an authority structure so that responsibility may be differentiated and tasks assigned. As organizations become more complex and limitations on span of control become obvious, elaboration at both worker and manager levels takes place. Within the management segment, specialization leads to refinements in the hierarchy, and distinctions clarify first-level, middle-management, and top-management groups. Some of the most persistent problems arise as individuals who find themselves at the first two levels of organization—that is, workers and firstlevel supervisors, seek to adjust to the demands of this particularly sensitive relationship. Many difficult questions arise to which present solutions are by no means final or ideal. For example, should the primary identification of first-line supervisors be with labor or management? If it is with labor, to what extent can the supervisor be expected to perform certain management functions inherent in his position? If it is with management, to what extent must he nonetheless relate to workers? Is a supervisor "above" his men just during the workday, or must this superior status be protected while off the job as well? Resolution of such questions to provide optimum adjustment in

16

T H E OTHER

WORKER

the special context of the man-boss relationship clearly constitutes another basic function in industrial relations. Status and Work

Requirements

A fourth significant function in industrial relations deals with the system of status which has characterized increasing industrialization and bureaucratization. Status differentiation on many bases surely preceded industrialism. But it is with the human adjustments best suited to the impact of modern industrial organizations upon relative prestige, deference, and social accord that we are most concerned in this volume. Many studies in the past thirty years have developed and reinforced the essential truth that status differentiation is a normal rather than a pathological phenomenon in industry. Ample evidence has been presented to make clear the potential positive impact which status systems can have upon other functions in industrial relations. It constitutes an important incentive to role fulfillment and upward mobility for the individual. Status acceptance sanctions and facilitates the efficient operation of a formal organizational hierarchy. In so doing, it also contributes to acceptance and effective discharge of responsibility at various levels of the structure. In many ways, a status system reinforces and increases acceptability of otherwise oppressive demands of formal organization. It is particularly important to appreciate fully the different responses which may be expected from workers and managers to the same status systems. We should know, for example, to what extent and in what terms workers are able to internalize a company's formal status system which has been originated by management. What are the criteria which, within a given nation, region, or company, are acceptable bases for status differentiation? T o what extent, and why, do certain workers tend to emphasize status distinctions while others tend to obscure such differences and the means, competitive or otherwise, which lead to them? Many important questions remain unresolved concerning status as a function in industrial relations. Rewards and

Benefits

At the nexus of employment relationships in all but the most primitive societies is a system of compensation. Although components and methods of compensation vary widely, some "package" of rewards and benefits is offered to workers in exchange for

INDUSTRIALIZATION

AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

17

their time and effort spent at the workplace. Because of this central position in employment, plus the fact that compensation provisions are the focal point of many additional labor-management problems, company policies and procedures regarding compensation constitute another major function in industrial relations. Systems devised for employee compensation tend to become more elaborate as industrialization proceeds, although the proportion of total compensation paid in kind tends to decline. Essentially, total compensation is composed of "wage" and "non-wage" items. Wages may be thought of as all payments made to employees for work performed, including direct production bonuses, premium pay for overtime, and extra pay for holiday and nightwork. Non-wage items, then, will include all other payments made by employers, either directly to workers or on their behalf. These latter payments, therefore, include a wide variety of "fringe benefits" which may be either required by law or voluntarily agreed upon by representatives of workers and management. 18 T h e compensation function is, of course, by no means solely economic in nature or impact. Many social and psychological studies have shown the significance of the role of pay as a social measure by which the individual's status, both on and off the job, is governed. Additional studies of the relationship of compensation to morale, productivity, labor turnover, and many other problems indicate the centrality of this function in industrial relations. Questions dealing with the relative importance of economic as opposed to noneconomic aspects of wages need further study. What sorts of compensation items do, in fact, provide greatest satisfaction to a given group of workers at a particular time? How do workers feel about the prevailing compensation "mix" which in many societies has emerged with little systematic planning or design? T o what extent, if at all, are employers' efforts to provide workers with a wide variety of benefits and services considered paternalistic, or even an intrusion upon personal privacy? Several such questions are examined in some detail in a later chapter of this report. Personnel

Decisions

Decision making is one of the most fundamental functions of an organization. In the broad area of industrial relations, many decisions must be reached, within and outside an organization. Some decisions are beyond the direct authority of both managers and workers, and are pre-empted by legislatures and government

l8

T H E OTHER

WORKER

agencies. Other decisions are reached only through collective bargaining between labor unions and management representatives. But there are still other decisions, particularly in the field of personnel management, that have to be made within an industrial organization by either or both its managers and its workers. Two groups of personnel decisions—those involving employment commitment and those relating to compensation—have already been introduced in preceding sections. Both topics, it should be noted, were treated primarily on a substantive basis—that is, the focus was upon worker perception of the issues themselves. However, there is another aspect of personnel decisions which seems to warrant separate treatment as a functional area of industrial relations. We are referring here to the process of decision making concerning personnel matters. It is important to understand, for example, the degree of centralization and the extent of employee participation that workers consider most appropriate in the decision-making process. In a later chapter dealing with personnel decisions, it is this procedural aspect which is stressed. Not only wages, but such issues as promotions, transfers, hours of work, and merit rating are utilized merely as situational vehicles in the examination of workers' perceptions of the decision-making process itself. In collective forms of society, central government plays a crucial role in determining personnel decisions of all kinds. Such a role is justified within the logic of centralized allocation and control of all national resources. In other social systems, governmental involvement is nominal and effected primarily through the general framework of labor law. In the latter case, personnel decisions typically result from collective bargaining, exercise of "management prerogatives," or, most typically, a combination of these two actions. T h e relative merits of these quite different social philosophies lie beyond the scope of this book. We are concerned, however, with such questions as the following: Should personnel decisions be primarily a matter of individual or group responsibility? T o what extent should staff specialists be involved in such decisions? How much weight should be given to the feelings of those who are directly, or indirectly, affected by personnel decisions? It seems especially important to increase our understanding of workers' perceptions and preferences concerning these matters, which are of such intimate concern to them.

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Role of Labor

lg

Unions

While variations certainly exist, the labor union stands today as the most important form of worker organization. Perhaps of equal importance, unions are now recognized as the collective voice and strength not only of organized workers but also of many thousands remaining beyond formal organizational ties. There are no industrially advanced nations of the Free World in which unions do not exist. Yet, it should also be emphasized that in no country of the world are all workers organized. While the legitimacy of labor unions as a social institution is well established, the nature and extent of their role in industrial relations is far from settled. In an earlier section of this chapter, we have treated the growth of labor organizations as an institutional concomitant of industrialization. Here the development of the most appropriate role of this relatively recent addition to society, and of management and worker attitudes in accommodating it in their negotiations, is considered as another major industrial relations function. Many questions relevant to this problem area press for answer. For example, what do workers perceive their responsibilities to be toward the union—or the company—when a strike is called? Should union leaders stress political or economic goals as being most appropriate for organized activity? What should be management's attitude in dealing with a recognized union—open conflict, armed truce, working harmony, or union-management co-operation? 17 In concluding these sections dealing with industrial relations functions, it should be noted that the discussion was not intended to be all-inclusive. Certain functions, such as training and education, safety administration, program evaluation, and personnel research, have been either integrated with the discussion of other activities or deleted because they did not seem related closely enough to the central purpose of this study. What has been said, however, should indicate sufficiently the variety and range of problems attending those human relationships that characterize a relatively mature industrial society. R A T I O N A L I T Y OF I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S Although the several functions just discussed seem to be universally characteristic of modern industrial relations systems, it

20

THE OTHER

WORKER

should be pointed out that policies and practices worked out for implementing these functions are by no means universal. Even in a single nation there are marked differences among geographic regions, industry groups, and individual companies in the approaches which, by chance or design, have been designated as most appropriate and useful. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we find distinct cultural variations among nations of the world. Certain ways of doing and ways of thinking in the industrial relations sphere are often indigenous to a single culture or to a limited "cultural family." It is only recently, however, that recognition has been given to crosscultural differences which tend to produce identifiable national systems of industrial relations. As D u n l o p points out, "the literature on industrial relations has recently begun to make explicit use of the term 'system,' particularly to describe features characteristic of one country and distinguished from others." 18 W i t h increasing attention being devoted to national industrial relations systems, various schools of thought have emerged which seek to explain cross-cultural differences and, in some cases, to deplore the obvious lack of unity. One school attributes the differences to the stage of general development of societies, while another seeks explanations of such differences in term of sociocultural forces. These points of view now will be presented briefly, and, finally, our own preferences and the resulting approach to be followed in this book will be outlined. A Formularistic

"Ideal"

One way of accounting for, and dealing with, national differences in industrial relations systems is to conceive of one such system as an "ideal," or perfect model. T h i s model is considered to be the inevitable outcome of an inherent logic of relatively mature industrialism. A l l others may then be considered deviations based u p o n varying degrees of imperfection which persist until "corrected." Since the model represents the ideal degree of rationalism attainable in a system of industrial relations, the further the distance between a particular system and the model, the greater is the degree of irrationality present in the system under examination. In a sense, a parallel may be drawn between this school of thought and the scientific management movement at the turn of the century. Some of the followers of Frederick W . T a y l o r were convinced that there was bound to be one most rational m e t h o d — "one best w a y " — f o r arriving at a solution to industrial problems.

I N D U S T R I A L I Z A T I O N AND I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S

21

Although temporary failure to determine the one best way led to frustration, the doctrine generally was a hopeful one. Once the ideal system was constructed, then all that remained was to fill the gap between actual methods being followed and the model. This whole approach was consistent with a philosophy of the times that management already knew all the principles it needed—the only deficiency was in using them. Transferred to the modern industrial world with its differences among national industrial relations systems, this viewpoint takes only a slightly different form. The model now tends to be recognized as one, or several, of the most advanced industrial societies. Less-advanced nations, then, are looked upon as less than perfect to the extent that they deviate from the "best" system displayed by the model country. Regardless of social and cultural differences, so the argument goes, the logic of industrialism must ultimately prevail in any industrial society, resulting in uniformity of industrial relations systems throughout the world. Proponents of this school often speak of a "lag" between lessadvanced and more-advanced industrial systems. The obvious implication is that traditionalism means backwardness and that just as soon as social forces now causing the lag can be "corrected" (that is, made identical with those in the model system) the gap can be closed. The attempt to eliminate the lag, therefore, is said to represent a road to progress—in fact, the only road to achieving greater rationalism in industrial relations in a given society. It is interesting that this school of thought finds loyal adherents not only in the advanced model countries but in the lessadvanced nations as well. Considerable optimism is expressed on all sides that the unfortunate lag will in time be remedied. While a comfortably simple scheme, this point of view is increasingly exposed as hopelessly naïve. Many developing nations are learning the pitfalls inherent in this theory at the high cost of disappointing experiences and frustration. Intercultural research in the social sciences has also started to cast increasing doubt upon the validity of such reasoning. Cultural

Determinism

A second school of thought stresses the viewpoint that industrial relations must vary from country to country in accordance with political, social, and cultural differences. Traditionalism does not necessarily mean backwardness, and variations among nations merely reflect the fact that industrial principles are not absolute;

22

T H E OTHER

WORKER

they are relative to the society in which they are formulated. Furthermore, this reasoning frequently leads to the assertion that only by reflecting tradition and culture in the development process can a system of industrial relations be successfully rationalized. In both principle and practice, this line of thought may not be a false one. Since aggressive experts in a developing nation are often not problem-centered innovators but imitators of experiences abroad, cultural determinists can play the role of realistic arbitrators in the development process. But there are at least two further considerations often overlooked by the proponents of this school of thought. When this point of view develops from within a nation, it often reflects a reaction to the rapid change taking place in the society striving for achievement of welfare values through industrialization. As a result, supporters of this viewpoint are sometimes found among traditionalists who fail to see the road ahead in the march toward industrialism. Also, in industrial relations, cultural determinists may tend to become ultraconservative and nonadaptive while the rapid shift in the system of industrial relations may call for leaders more flexible than those required in a more stabilized society. Still another danger arises when the cultural determinists represent foreign specialists who are sympathetic but not empathetic enough with the changing cultural patterns of an evolving society. Kunio Odaka, in criticizing reliance upon this theory by various American scholars in recent studies of postwar industrial relations in Japan, says that it "places too much emphasis on positive contributions made by traditional practices to the progress of Japan's industrialization and economic growth" and that it "is based on exaggeration and misinterpretation." Somewhat testily he adds: "Besides, the theory is based on superficial and inaccurate observations made by foreigners." 19 It does seem reasonable that culture and tradition must be given serious analysis and due consideration in the pursuit of rationalism in the system of industrial relations in any society. But wholehearted acceptance of "cultural determinism" is likely to foster traditionalism and ultraconservatism which, in turn, will make the search difficult if not futile. On the road to pluralistic industrialism, we seem to need a balanced view which will benefit both the practitioner and the research worker in their search for rationalism in industrial relations in different societies.

INDUSTRIALIZATION AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

2J

A Balanced Appraisal W h i l e both approaches to rationalism in the field of industrial relations possess certain merits as well as deficiencies, neither alone seems to suffice in the world today. T h e universal formulism implicit in the "ideal-system" approach does not adequately accommodate the demonstrated forces of tradition and culture. T h e particularism implicit in cultural determinism, reflects neither the inherent logic of industrialization nor the increasing interdependence of nations in the world. T h e former approach can lead to unwarranted self-confidence and even aggressiveness in "model" countries as they seek to "help others to see the l i g h t " — a n d thereby "close the gap." In contrast, the latter way of thinking can lead to a sort of intellectual isolationism, a reluctance to take decisive action, and an industrial relations system which tends to become culture-bound at the very time when exciting new opportunities become feasible for mutually advantageous interchange. It is only when industrial relations systems are studied within a frame of reference flexible enough and broad enough to accommodate both the logic of industrialism and the influence of tradition and culture that a realistic analysis can be expected. In our search for rationalism in industrial relations, what we need is a new definition of a rational action. As T a l c o t t Parsons clearly states, an action is only "rational in so far as it pursues ends possible within the conditions of the situation, and by the means which, among those available to the actor, are intrinsically best adapted to the end for reasons understandable and verifiable by positive empirical science." 2 0 Since both industrial and cultural forces are present, a system of industrial relations can only be rational if it best serves the ends of its various functions within the context of such forces. It then becomes the task of researchers to evaluate the policies and practices in terms of the achievement of functional ends in each system of industrial relations. W e find this balanced viewpoint well reflected in the excellent international studies conducted by members of the Inter-university Study of Labor Problems in Economic Development. Furthermore, an increasing number of more recent international projects are adopting this dual viewpoint which, we have been convinced since the very beginning of the field research upon which this volume is based, is essential to an understanding of national industrial rela-

24

THE other worker

tions systems. This mutuality in conceptual approach persists in spite of the fact that the focus and levels of analysis presented in this volume are rather different from those of the Inter-university study of management development. In the next chapter we shall turn attention to the role and significance of worker perceptions in industrial relations. This particular aspect of industrialism provides the focus for the concrete research results described in Part II.

Chapter 2

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

In the preceding chapter, we first presented our views on the impact of industrialization upon systems of industrial relations in society. Several functional areas in industrial relations systems with which we are to deal in this cross-cultural study involving two nations were also indicated. Finally, some contrasting viewpoints as to what constitutes a rational action in industrial relations were examined. The Weberidn view of substantive rationality was accepted as a goal to be achieved in any system of industrial relations. This chapter is concerned with the methodological aspects of our study. First, the background of cross-cultural research in industrial relations will be reviewed in an attempt to explain the "situational" logics behind the present joint research in two cultures. The section that follows explains some methodological problems in developing a theoretical framework for a duocultural study, and a few basic concepts that have helped in coping with such methodological problems are discussed. Since our study relies heavily upon perceptual data of industrial workers, the next section will deal with the rationale for this emphasis. This, in turn, will be followed by a description of the questionnaire survey conducted by us in the United States and Japan. Finally, our determination to integrate institutional and behavioral treatment of the subject will be explained. B A C K G R O U N D OF C R O S S - C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H Since the time of Karl Marx, many labor movement studies traditionally have been characterized by internationalism. This was partly a reflection of geographical and cultural proximity among European industrial nations, and partly a manifestation of

26

T H E OTHER

WORKER

the wide-spread political significance of international communism. This tendency was also manifest among American pioneers in the field of industrial relations who rightfully assumed some degree of continuity from the European experience to early American developments. But, as industrialization reached the self-sustaining stage in the United States, the system of industrial relations also took a distinctly unique form reflecting its growing isolation from European systems. It was then natural for the focus of U.S. industrial relations research to become primarily inward. This was largely the case in the United States until the end of World War II. This was even more true in fields other than labor, and one finds few substantial references in the literature dealing with industrial relations or personnel management, prior to the end of the war, to foreign experience and practice. A n undisputed role of industrial leadership, plus geographic isolation, led to an attitude of selfsufficiency in America's industrial relations, as in many other facets of society. T h e changing role of the United States in world affairs and the vastly increased interchange in many fields since the war years have shifted this attitude of self-sufficiency in industrial relations to one of interdependence and broader interest. As will be mentioned in the next chapter, there was a tendency in the immediate postwar years, particularly in relationships with those nations suffering military defeat, for Americans to "sell" (and for foreign nationals to "buy") the U.S. system as a model possessing almost unlimited applicability throughout the world. It is true that even today there are many persons, both in the United States and abroad, who persist in thinking of the American management system as being the one best, and universally applicable, system. But during more recent years, as the relations of the United States to the rest of the world have grown in scope and depth, a more objective, betterbalanced point of view has led to a surge of interest in research using a cross-cultural comparative approach. I n Japan, it is significant that the development of industrial relations research came later than in the United States, Great Britain, and certain European nations. It is not surprising, therefore, that Japanese industrial relations research tended rather early to rely upon the findings of foreign studies. For example, a volume, published in 1920, first analyzed labor problems in Western nations and then applied these analyses to the Japanese scene. 1 Scholarly studies, prior to the rise of militarism in the 1930s, were

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

27

typically characterized by this sort of heavy reliance upon foreign sources. During the 1930s and early 1940s, studies of labor and related problems generally were discouraged by the militaristic government, but the traditional emphasis on a cross-cultural approach managed to survive in academic circles. Empirical studies dealing rigorously with the Japanese scene, therefore, have been distinctly a postwar phenomenon. But, in spite of the fact that there are now a good many studies which are quite indigenous and focus solely on the Japanese situation, the earlier emphasis upon industrial relations in other nations persists in much of the literature. T h i s may be seen in many studies which continue to incorporate numerous references to, and demonstrate a strong interest in, research outside of Japan. T h i s international comparative approach seems to be of increasing interest to Japanese scholars. For somewhat different reasons, therefore, and following a quite different path of development, industrial relations research has become increasingly international in scope and treatment in both Japan and the United States. T h e present study continues this trend and seeks to provide an integrated, balanced analysis. In this way, we shall hope to avoid the limitations of those earlier studies which were too narrowly culture-bound in approach or excessively imitative in nature.

A DUOCULTURAL

APPROACH

International comparison is an integral part of the approach we have adopted in our study. But our focus is not placed upon collection and classification of data from two cultures merely for the sake of making comparisons. T o us, cross-cultural comparison becomes most fruitful only when it yields new insights into the problems inherent in each system of industrial relations. In this respect, we are "problem-centered" in that we are primarily concerned with tensions and pressures existent in each system of industrial relations. In other words, we are interested not only in describing each system, but also in identifying indications of "irrationality" and in making diagnoses which may be useful to practitioners in each country. In the Introduction to this volume, we indicated our acceptance of the assumption that industrial relations is a subsystem of a culture. As such, it is an integral whole which transforms gradually as its equilibrium is threatened by new forces developing inside the

28

T H E OTHER WORKER

system as well as by those from the surrounding environment. This assumption is particularly helpful in terms of the problem-solving approach mentioned above, but it also poses a new methodological problem in cross-cultural research. The system approach presupposes the unique nature of each industrial relations system, whether it is at the national, industry, or plant level. Consequently, a problem-centered approach requires the analysis of the forces within and outside the system which are perceived by the actor to be relevant to the solution of the problem. In this process of problem-solving, it should be noted that factors considered irrelevant by the actor are to be excluded even though they may be quite relevant in a different context. Therefore, a problem-centered approach is particularistic by nature, and is inherently ethnocentric when applied to a problem posed by a given national system of industrial relations. Likewise, an analytical framework best suited to the examination of the industrial relations system in a given culture must be particularistic in the sense it is formulated (1) on the basis of specific experiences in the situation, and (2) in terms of concepts and values relevant to the societal context. In other words, a "good" monocultural framework of analysis in industrial relations is ethnocentric, and it cannot be universally applicable unless the area of investigation overlaps substantially among cultures. Although research studies applying an analytical framework of a monocultural origin to different cultures are often referred to as cross-cultural studies, perhaps this is a mistake. Such research methods will produce a set of findings consistent with the original culture, and hence its audience, but are often off-the-point in terms of the true issues in the other societies. The findings may be "interesting" just as a casual tourist's observations on a foreign land may be, but will have little value in understanding different cultures. A multinational study involving societies of substantially different cultural patterns requires an analytical framework which is equally applicable to all the participating cultures. This means that unique features of specific systems may have to be sacrificed at times for the sake of universal applicability of the analytic tool. The findings from such research methods will be equally effective or ineffective in all the cultures being studied. The present study, a duo-cultural one, attempts to analyze the industrial relations in Japan and the United States from neither's exclusive frame of reference. True, the analysis of each system is

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

2g

designed to help its understanding from a problem-centered point of view. But on the other hand, neither the Japanese nor American system of industrial relations is used as a model to analyze the other. In this respect, this study strives to arrive at a balance between problem-centered and cross-cultural approaches. Figure 1 summarizes the points in question. T h e two ellipses, marked X and Y respectively, denote the industrial relations systems of two hypothetical cultures. T h e overlapping areas represent common features of the two systems, whereas those areas which do not overlap indicate discrete features. In the analysis of industrial relations system X , the solid line ab represents the longest line in the ellipse, and may be assumed to be the best available analytical framework for describing system X . In other words, if one wishes to analyze system X with a particularistic approach, ab represents the analytical framework to be adopted. This is typical of most descriptive, as well as prescriptive, monocultural studies found in the social sciences. Many so-called cross-cultural studies merely attempt to apply framework ab to the analysis of other systems (system Y in this case). This attempt represents the sort of model approach discussed above, in which another system is analyzed only in terms of a model system. Obviously, the value of such an analysis is limited,

a

JO

THE OTHER

WORKER

as exemplified by the p r o j e c t e d coverage of ab o n cd. I n analyzing system Y, the analytical framework ab is not fully successful since it only covers ce, or merely a p o r t i o n of cd. If a particularistic app r o a c h is to be a p p l i e d to system Y, framework cd will b e r e q u i r e d to account fully for the variables in the system. Hence, a study with ab as its analytical framework fails to e x a m i n e system Y sufficiently even t h o u g h system X can be successfully analyzed by a p p l i c a t i o n of framework ab. Likewise, a p p l i c a t i o n of cd as the analytical framework for systems X a n d Y will be equally unsuccessful because it can only cover p a r t of system X . T h e r e f o r e , in a d u o c u l t u r a l study, attempts have to be m a d e to use neither ab nor cd exclusively as the analytical framework. Perhaps, the best framework m a y b e represented schematically by bd which has e q u a l applicability to b o t h systems a n d which is e q u i d i s t a n t f r o m each of the frameworks necessary for a m o r e particularistic a p p r o a c h . T h i s synthetic framework will then be m o r e effective than ab or cd alone in the d u o c u l t u r a l setting. As a particularistic a p p r o a c h , f r a m e w o r k bd u n d o u b t e d l y will b e less productive in identifying true issues in each system. B u t , the a p p r o a c h will lead us to m o r e m e a n i n g f u l u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of the two systems in aggregate. T h r o u g h o u t this volume, o u r attempts to reconcile the frameworks of two different industrial relations systems will be a p p a r e n t . I n a n effort to develop o u r version of framework bd, we are introd u c i n g some new concepts which are neither A m e r i c a n nor J a p a nese alone. A l t h o u g h their use is limited to instances in which o u r survey d a t a necessitate new conceptualization, we feel that these attempts represent a new a p p r o a c h in cross-cultural research. I t s h o u l d be emphasized that this d u o c u l t u r a l a p p r o a c h is by no m e a n s a n a t t e m p t to develop a comprehensive, universalistic f r a m e w o r k for the analysis of industrial relations systems in a multi-culture setting. I n a schematic form, for e x a m p l e , D u n l o p ' s theory of an industrial relations system may be represented by the line bf in F i g u r e i. I n coverage, bf is wider than bd, a n d hence it m a y be a p p l i c a b l e m o r e universally to the analysis of various types of systems. O n the other h a n d , bd is closer than bf to systems X a n d Y a n d therefore enables a more intimate analysis of the two systems than bf. W i t h this methodological discussion completed, we now turn to a consideration of the e m p h a s i s p u t u p o n worker perception in the present study.

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

W O R K E R P E R C E P T I O N S IN I N D U S T R I A L

31

RELATIONS

In addition to the cross-cultural emphasis mentioned above, a further characteristic of the present study is its stress upon worker perceptions as a key factor in industrial relations. W h y approach the study of industrial relations from this point of view? W e feel this approach can be justified when the significance of the several roles played by workers in industrial relations today is fully understood. It seems quite clear that at least three such worker roles may be identified: (1) as one of the objects of management in a productive organization; (2) as participants, either individually or collectively, in industrial relations decisions; and (3) as important links between the total social system and the subsystem of industrial relations. Each of these roles warrants brief discussion in this context. Object

of

Management

A s members of a productive organization, industrial workers become an object of management in the sense that functional areas of management must be developed to nurture the relationships such membership creates and demands. T h i s set of related duties and responsibilities has become known as the personnel function. A t first largely a line responsibility, the increasing scope and complexity of the personnel function gradually stimulated creation of staff divisions entrusted with this essential phase of administration. In more recent years, at least in the United States, rather clearly designated sharing of personnel responsibilities between line and staff has developed. N o matter where the locus of responsibility is, however, workers themselves do play an essentially passive role as objects of managerial decision making. A n d it is this very element of passivity which demands extension beyond this initial role. T h e r e is ample and convincing evidence that authority in organizations must come not only from above, but also from the peer level and from below. Authority leans heavily upon acceptance among those over whom such power is sought. Herbert A . Simon defines authority as "the power to make decisions which guide the actions of another." H e further states that " W h e n , and only when, these behaviors occur does a relation of authority exists between the two

32

T H E OTHER

WORKER

persons involved. When the behaviors do not occur there is no authority, whatever may be the 'paper' theory of organization." 2 There seems to be an assumption underlying the writings of those who rely heavily upon this passive role of workers that there is, and will remain, a large gap between the sorts of industrial relationships sought by workers and those sought by management. A rather logical temptation, therefore, is to assign to managers, as wielders of authority and power, the determining voice in settling the particular patterns these relationships shall follow. A n illustration of this may be found in the very provocative volume Management in the Industrial World, by Frederick Harbison and Charles A. Myers, in the heavy emphasis placed upon the discretion of a "management elite." On the other hand, even with their extreme management orientation, the authors recognize that managers, in their efforts to achieve positive motivation and high productivity, must "create conditions in which the goals of the workers, as seen by the worker, are substantially the same as those of the management." 3 It is, of course, true that both managers and workers are integral parts of an industrial relations system. But to award such a predominate role to management in setting the course of development in these relationships seems unwarranted. In actual practice, there are many restraints upon management's discretionary power in this area. A n obvious example may be found in the fact, increasingly recognized, that the very principles of administration must accommodate to the cultural environment in which they are applied. Everett E. Hagen points this out in his already classic observation that "principles of administration are not absolute; they are relative to the society." 4 Furthermore, one need not dwell too long on the critical influence of labor unions in modifying the management position to realize that the role of a management elite cannot stand alone in a realistic study of centers of influence which shape the course of industrial relations. Industrial workers, who are in fact the most numerous of the several parties involved, do exercise both a direct and indirect influence which cannot be ignored. T h e perceptions of workers, therefore, concerning those patterns of relationships with management which they consider most desirable and appropriate constitute a useful, but little exploited, approach to an understanding of industrial relations in a given society. A final point which should be made is that worker attitudes

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

33

and perceptions, whether coterminous with or in opposition to those of management, seem to be the more static and resistant to change. Values and preconceptions, many of which find their roots outside the industrial relations system, do not yield easily to changes which are not within a fairly narrow zone of acceptance. For these and other reasons, it is not enough to relegate workers to a passive role as amenable objects of management. A t least two additional, and more active, roles must be considered. Worker

Participation

T h e plain fact is that in modern industrial relations workers can and do exert considerable influence in shaping the patterns and practices adopted. Such participation seems most feasible and effective on a group rather than individual basis. In addition to regular line channels through which needs and demands of workers may be heard and felt, such media as labor unions, political organizations, and worker-management committees may be utilized. Among these, the labor union seems to be the most relevant in the two nations with which we are concerned. Whether organized on a national, regional, industrial, craft, or enterprise basis, there is little doubt that labor unions do exert considerable influence upon the shape and course of industrial relations. Both in periodic contract negotiations and in day-by-day adjustment of grievances, the human relationships created by industrialization are influenced by union philosophies and policies. Since, at least theoretically, union leaders are selected on a democratic basis, we must assume that in the majority of cases the demands of union leaders express the will and intentions of the workers they represent. Furthermore, it should be recognized that in some nations, including Japan and the United States, the influence upon smaller firms of leading companies with powerful unions is very great. In a sense, this fact exerts a multiplier effect which spreads the impact of patterns established in these latter companies throughout the economy. It is also true that labor unions sometimes represent their members through political activities and in their impact upon relevant labor laws which emerge from such activities. T h e political role of unions varies markedly among nations, but it is by no means necessary that a labor party enjoy a majority position in order to exert tremendous influence. Even in countries such as Japan, in which labor-oriented parties have long remained minor-

34

THE OTHER

WORKER

ity groups, the need for acceptance and support by this group is usually considered essential before instigating major changes in labor legislation. From the foregoing discussion, it would appear that union leaders themselves would provide the best approach to the study of industrial relations. But, unfortunately, this does not always seem to prove true in practice. As unions grow in size and strength, the gap between union-oriented goals and membership-oriented goals tends to widen. W h e n this happens, it becomes necessary for union leaders to devote increasing time and attention to organization demands which reflect their role as union leaders rather than reflecting solely the wishes of the membership. It seems more desirable, therefore, if we are to study the worker's role in industrial relations systems, to approach the problem through individual perception rather than through those sources of group expression which are available to us. Workers as a

Link

A n industrial relations system may be thought of as an integral part of the larger socioeconomic system of a given society. As such, it must achieve a degree of compatibility with the larger system which is sufficient to permit a condition of dynamic equilibrium. W h i l e short-run disruptive influences may be expected to create temporary conditions of disequilibrium, there must be some means for long-term adjustment to the demands of the total social system. Industrial workers are in a unique and effective position to provide this essential link since they are members both of the industrial relations system and the larger social system of which it is a part. T h u s we find workers serving as integrative agents in extending to industry the prevailing familial, community, and interpersonal relations which have deep roots outside the industrial relations context. T h e perceptions of workers become extremely important, therefore, in integrating the industrial relations system and the larger system of social relations. A s can be seen from this discussion, worker perceptions tend both to preserve the cultural impact upon patterns of industrial relations and to encourage change in them as changes take place in the socioeconomic environment. In concluding this section, we do not claim that utilizing worker perceptions as the medium through which industrial relations is studied provides the only, or even the best, approach for all

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

35

objectives. W e do feel, however, that the study reported on in this v o l u m e — t h a t is, a cross-cultural study of industrial relations through the medium of worker perceptions—is a promising approach to the problem and one which perhaps has not been sufficiently explored by other scholars.

WORKER PERCEPTION

SURVEY

T h e methodology employed in this international study involved the administration of a specially designed questionnaire to selected industrial worker groups equally divided between the United States and Japan. As in most research programs, certain assumptions underlie the selection of a particular combination of techniques. In this case, essentially three such assumptions were present: (1) both similarities and differences exist between patterns of industrial relations in the United States and Japan; (2) a rigorous cross-cultural approach to the study of industrial relations, utilizing several of the behavioral sciences, is both feasible and necessary; (3) some modification of the methodology traditionally used in attitudinal surveys would be most appropriate for achieving the objectives of this study. Each of these assumptions requires some elaboration or qualification. W i t h respect to the first assumption, earlier studies quite clearly support the existence of differences in industrial relations patterns and practices in the two countries involved. N o t only is this true of the more recent works of Western observers, but it is also borne out in earlier works of Japanese scholars. 5 Less often stressed by writers in both countries are certain striking and persistent similarities. T h e more insightful studies, as well as our own experiences and research, seem to bear out this second equally important, but perhaps less dramatic, point. T u r n i n g to the second assumption, that is the assumed need for, and feasibility of, cross-cultural studies of industrial relations which put heavy stress on the behavioral sciences, the writers feel there is ample evidence to support this assumption. Most relevant of the behavioral sciences to an understanding of the human problems of industrialization are various fields of specialization within psychology, sociology, and anthropology. These disciplines provide a sort of insight which simply is not possible when the approach is solely through economics, jurisprudence, or some other more institutional discipline. Furthermore, we are convinced that the crosscultural aspect of the study provides a necessary perspective, not

36

T H E OTHER WORKER

merely for the obvious purpose of comparison, but even more significantly for deeper understanding of the industrial relations system in each country. Two factors underlie the assumption that some modification of attitudinal survey techniques would best serve the objectives of the present study. First, we believe that a sufficiently advanced and refined theoretical structure underlies the industrial relations system in both J a p a n and the United States to make a form of questionnaire survey fruitful. Second, earlier studies in which one of the writers participated provided some confidence and experience in adapting such techniques to this sort of cross-cultural research. 6 Questionnaire

Study

Questionnaire design for this project was begun as an early step in the small pilot program conducted solely in Japan. 7 Recognizing that a special sort of questionnaire had to be created which would present realistic choice situations close to the experience and sentiments of respondents, no question was designed until the completion of conferences with interested representatives of business, labor, and educational organizations. In addition, interviews were conducted with a number of production-level workers. These meetings, plus extensive review of relevant literature and the writers' own experiences in the field, provided the background for the creation of the original questionnaire. It consisted of forty questions, each highly situational in nature, and each of which offered four concrete choices from which respondents could choose. Due to the care exercised in formulating questions, and to the concrete nature of the situations posed, it was hoped that realistic responses would be achieved. In addition, the researchers strove to minimize the possibility of responses based upon worker ideology rather than customary and actual patterns of behavior. In so doing, it was hoped that a respondent could select the particular behavior pattern he considered most appropriate to the situation even though he was not familiar with the abstract concepts involved. The most important reason, however, for designing this particular type of questionnaire was to minimize possible differences in meaning which can arise from administration in two very different languages. For example, in attempting to evaluate how much loyalty an employee feels to the firm in which he works, a direct question using the term "loyalty," and its Japanese counterpart in translation, would not produce comparable results because of the substantial difference in conceptualization in the two cul-

M E T H O D S F O R C R O S S - C U L T U R A L STUDY

37

tures. It seemed far more productive to pose respondents in several concrete situations in which their choice of behavior will indicate the degree of commitment they feel to the company for which they work. This situational-choice format has been used in designing each of the thirty questions in the present version of the questionnaire. 8 In the pilot-study version of the questionnaire, each question was assumed to constitute an attitudinal scale on a hypothetical psychological dimension which could be thought of as an East-West continuum. For this reason, positions on the continuum represented by each of the four choices were designated EE (Extreme East), ME (Moderate East), MW (Moderate West), and EW (Extreme West). For convenience only, "East" referred to Japan and "West" to the United States, since we naturally did not consider Japan representative of the entire Orient nor the United States representative of the whole Western World. Neither did we assume that the E E and EW positions necessarily represented theoretical poles of the psychological continuum. In fact, such alternatives represented only relative positions on the U.S.-Japan continuum which we were using at that time. In the revised questionnaire used in the present study, such designations as EE, ME, MW, and EW have been dropped in order to stress that we have discarded the concept of an East-West continuum as such. Instead, we have attempted to develop choices in which a single variable increases or decreases on a psychological continuum represented by such choices. The important point here is that in the revised questionnaire no explicit assumptions are made concerning which choice represents East or West, Japan or the United States. From a methodological standpoint, the process of constructing such a questionnaire involves a rather difficult compromise of two conflicting requirements: the demand that questions, on the one hand, be specific and, at the same time, be unidimensional. Situational questions become more "specific," in the sense we are using the term, as additional variables are introduced to describe, modify, or support. But when this is done, it becomes more difficult to manipulate the central variable while keeping the others constant. Furthermore, the resulting complexity of the statements, even though greater specification has been achieved, may constitute a barrier to comprehension. Particularly in the case of worker-level studies, therefore, variables must be kept at a minimum to assure adequate comprehension. Unfortunately, this opens the door for a

38

T H E OTHER

WORKER

variety of uncontrolled outside variables left to the imagination of respondents as they arrive at decisions. T h i s result of course reduces the unidimensional quality of the scale. Such is the nature of one dilemma facing all researchers seeking the most useful compromise between often-conflicting objectives. But it is by no means the only technical difficulty. For example, in a cross-cultural study there frequently are instances in which a phenomenon which is common in one culture simply does not exist in the other. A n illustration of this may be seen in the "local" unions which constitute the basic labor organization in the United States. In Japan, although the closest counterpart would be the "enterprise" union, the most cursory comparison shows important differences between the two organizational units. A further difficulty faced by the researchers was the fact that rather commonplace phenomena in one culture may appear to be extreme, and in some cases almost bizarre, when viewed from another cultural frame of reference. Using illustrations drawn from the questionnaire items, the use of formal "go-betweens" in marriages in Japan really has no counterpart in the United States' social customs. Conversely, reliance upon a "first-come-first-served" criterion in deciding whether a worker or his immediate boss should sit on a crowded bus seems quite unrealistic within the Japanese context. A n y questionnaire designed for cross-cultural studies of this nature, therefore, must finally represent the researchers' decision concerning the best compromise among various conflicting demands. N o doubt all seasoned investigators in the behavioral sciences will recall similar quandaries and will have experienced the inevitable dissatisfaction even with the best solution among available choices. Yet, in spite of these readily acknowledged difficulties, we feel that this study does represent a rather unique contribution to knowledge in this area, and that the method itself may be acceptable when compared with alternatives presently available in the social sciences. T h e r e are, of course, certain questionnaire items with which we are less satisfied than with others. These, as well as the more "successful" items, are included with the hope that future researchers may be aware of pitfalls as well as opportunities in the difficult quest for knowledge in this field. In both the United States and Japan, the questionnaire was conducted as a "gang survey" in groups ranging in size from 20 to 250 respondents. Each question was read aloud, with some oppor-

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

39

tunity for respondents to raise questions. In addition, minor explanations were given all participants concerning certain items with which the researchers anticipated some difficulty in comprehension. Fortunately, even when certain items seemed rather strange to respondents in either country, choices were made in good humor and with a level of sincerity and seriousness quite satisfying to the questionnaire administrator. Sampling

Procedure

A brief explanation with special reference to determination of the survey sample may be in order. In most such surveys, the question of the sample's representativeness vis-à-vis the total relevant population is considered to be of prime importance. In the present study, however, it was felt that comparability must be given priority over representativeness as a test of the sample. T h e following criteria were used to achieve the utmost comparability possible within the research framework: (1) type of industry, (2) firm's position in the industry, (3) location of firm, (4) worker characteristics, and (5) unionization. Detailed demographic features of the survey sample are presented in A p p e n d i x C. T a k i n g first the type of industries to be included, a number of restrictive decisions were made. Participating firms were limited to those in manufacturing. Furthermore, it was considered necessary to exclude those industries which were indigenous to Japan prior to the industrial development of the late nineteenth century. A n y industry selected had to have, of course, a close counterpart in the other country. Finally, we wanted to include only those industries which enjoy a position of relative importance in the economy of each nation. Based on these criteria, plus the obvious sine qua non of interest in the project and willingness to co-operate on the part of both management and labor representatives, the original selection of industries in Japan (where the survey was first completed) included a single firm from each of the following industries: steel; electrical; glass; and textiles. T h e firm's relative standing in the industry was a second selective criterion. It was agreed that, in both Japan and the United States, large-scale (relative to the particular industry) firms, widely recognized as leaders in the industry, tend to exercise a disproportionate influence upon developments in industrial relation. Such relatively important firms serve as pattern setters and play a clear leadership role in shaping industrial relations policies and practices. Therefore, a decision was made to make this leadership role

40

T H E OTHER

WORKER

one of the criteria in selecting firms within each country. A related special consideration in J a p a n was the fact that such leading firms recruit workers throughout the country rather than primarily from the local labor market. Also, a Japanese firm's relative standing has a direct influence upon such matters as patterns and levels of remuneration. Geographic location of the firm was a third selection criterion. I n each country, two of the four participating firms were located in primarily urban, heavily industrialized areas, while the remaining two were located in essentially rural areas. Because of regional differences in the United States, it was also considered desirable to select two firms from the North and two from states considered to be in the South. Turning to the important criterion of comparability in worker characteristics, a number of decisions were made. Division of the total 2,000 respondents was approximately equal in number between J a p a n (958) and the United States (1,042). It was also decided that only rank-and-file production workers would be included. Supervisors, even at the informal group-leader or "gangboss" level, were specifically excluded. A n effort was also made to remove any possible basis for status differentiation within the survey groups. For example, the Japanese sample excludes all so-called temporary workers, who, generally, are recognized as being of lower status than permanent workers. In the United States, the survey sample is composed almost entirely of white employees, although Negroes or other minority groups were not specifically excluded. Furthermore, the sample in each country, and in the survey sample as a whole, is approximately equally divided between males and females. With respect to age distribution, the sample roughly approximates that of the total work force in each plant, with the single exception of Japanese males. 9 For example, the distribution of Japanese females is strongly skewed toward those in their teens and twenties. T h i s skewness is characteristic of the work force in most large-scale Japanese factories employing female workers. Although we were thus able to achieve a high degree of international comparability, the final selection fell somewhat short of what might be thought of as an "ideal" sample. Our range in choice of industries in the U.S. study was limited by the fact that the study was completed first in Japan. This meant that it was necessary to gain co-operation from U.S. counterparts of the partici-

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

41

pating Japanese firms. In the case of the steel industry, for example, this raised difficulties for two reasons. First, the number of leading steel companies in the United States is rather limited. In addition, it was necessary, because of scheduling requirements, to conduct the U.S. study during a period of prolonged and critical union-management contract negotiations in the steel industry. We were asking each company to contribute 250 man-hours for the completion of the questionnaire. In some companies the inability to interrupt the production flow meant that workers were available only before or after completing their shift and therefore had to be paid on an overtime basis. While the sums involved were not large, still we could reluctantly understand the position of management in one U.S. firm that the conducting of such a study would be inconsistent with a very severe cost-reduction program then under way throughout the organization. There is no need to elaborate in detail upon the practical difficulties in achieving the optimum comparability and representativeness of the sample we were seeking. It was, of course, necessary to gain the co-operation of both the union and management in each company. In one U.S. company, for example, four questions were deleted from the questionnaire at the request of union representatives. These questions will be noted as they appear in Part II of this volume. Additional difficulties encountered in both countries included: occasional rather overt suspicion of foreign researchers, which, in at least one instance, barred one of the investigators from the actual administration of the questionnaire; reluctance to divulge trade secrets—typically most apparent in those industries which had the least to lose; inability to see the value of a study which manifestly would have little effect on next month's operating statement; timing conflicts, as with the steel negotiations already mentioned, and, in the case of Japan's auto industry, with the peak period in annual production. More important to record is the fact that an entirely satisfactory sample was obtained through the generous co-operation of management and labor respresentatives in the eight participating companies. With this assistance and, perhaps, "a little bit of luck," the study was completed on a rather rigorous time schedule and with full confidence on the part of the researchers that respondents indicated thoughtful and sincere choices to the questions posed in the survey.

42

T H E OTHER

WORKER

AN INSTITUTIONAL-BEHAVIORAL

APPROACH

T h r o u g h o u t this volume, a rigorous effort has been made to provide an approach to the understanding of industrial relations which would integrate findings of the institutional sciences with worker-perception data, which are primarily behavioral scienceoriented. In the present chapter, we have given a rather detailed explanation of the survey conducted by the authors in the United States and Japan. But as the book progresses, the reader will become aware of a deliberate attempt to integrate the results of the worker-perception study with findings of the social sciences to provide a meaningful context and perspective for analysis. W e have consistently tried to provide an institutional framework for understanding specific results of the questionnaire survey. T h e integrated approach grew from a conviction that neither the behavioral nor institutional sciences alone would offer an adequate analysis of industrial relations in a given society. Social sciences of an institutional nature provide an excellent background against which behavioral data may be examined for m a x i m u m benefits. W i t h o u t the macroscopic advantage of a social science framework, cross-sectional behavioral studies often lack the perspective of an over-all current context as well as the historical process of evolution. O n the other hand, behavioral sciences offer unique insight into the dynamics of human behavior that are not readily discernable through the rational analytical logic of some of the social sciences. Unless analysis reaches the microscopic, the behavioral level, many phenomena in industrial relations cannot be accounted for adequately in present industrial societies. Admittedly, such an interdisciplinary approach is easy to advocate but difficult to put into practice. Both social and behavioral scientists naturally tend to stick to their own disciplines because of their "trained incapacity." Many interdisciplinary studies have too often resulted in a series of related but independent contributions by the members of the research team. Integration within "one brain" is perhaps much more desirable, but to be effective it requires an exceptional intellectual ability, to which the present authors make no claim. Nevertheless, our study perhaps follows the latter path more closely than the former, even though two heads were involved throughout all phases of the research. In a sense, the institutional-behavioral approach attempted in this volume is a product of developments over several years of col-

METHODS FOR CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

45

laborative research, rather than of a careful initial plan with welldefined objectives. Originally, this study was intended to be primarily behavioral science-oriented, with the worker-perception questionnaire as the major tool. But, as the research progressed, the authors became increasingly convinced, as the result of a continuous dialectic process, that a more integrated approach was necessary, one which would reach out into some of the contributions made by institutional-type social scientists. Perhaps the shift in emphasis to broaden our perspective is not entirely successful, but the authors are convinced that this goal of integration, though difficult, has at least been a worth-while one. SUMMARY In this chapter, we have examined briefly the background for cross-cultural research in the United States and Japan. Although early labor movement studies in the United States showed some reflection of European experience, the focus of most industrial relations research until the end of World War I I was largely inward. In postwar years, some international studies were pursued, but only very recently has extensive interest been evidenced in a truly cross-cultural comparative approach. In Japan, on the other hand, the relatively late emergence of industrial relations studies led quite naturally to a reliance upon foreign sources and experiences. This outward orientation has persisted and has developed so that today many studies in industrial relations in Japan are based upon extensive cross-cultural analysis. T h e present study is cross-cultural in nature, not merely because of the current interest in international comparisons per se, but, rather, because we feel such comparison is essential to the achievement of keener insight and understanding of each of the industrial relations systems involved. It has been difficult, though necessary, to avoid the particularism of monocultural studies while still not aspiring to universalism in the cross-cultural analysis. In this attempt, we have developed a duocultural framework that offers a new approach which we have found intriguing and useful. T h e survey of workers in the United States and Japan, to which a major share of Part I I is devoted, utilizes worker perceptions as the medium through which industrial relations in the two countries is investigated. In at least partial justification for this emphasis, some elaboration has been offered of three important roles served by industrial workers: as objects of management; as

44

T H E OTHER WORKER

participants, either individually or collectively, in industrial relations decisions; and as links between the total system and the industrial relations subsystem. Utilizing a specially developed questionnaire, the survey offered thirty situational-choice questions to approximately one thousand production workers in each of the two countries. An earlier version of the questionnaire, and the refinements made in that instrument, have been described in some detail, as have some of the technical difficulties encountered. In addition, the sampling procedure has been outlined, and some explanation given for our according comparability priority over representativeness in sample selection. In the quest for maximum comparability, five criteria were utilized: type of industry, position of the firm in the industry, location of the firm, worker characteristics, and unionization. Finally, some explanation has been given of the institutionalbehavioral approach which characterizes the whole volume. A consistent effort was made to integrate generalized findings from various relevant fields of inquiry with our own survey data. Such a balanced treatment seems essential if one accepts, as do the writers, the basic conviction that patterns of industrial relations are the product of the total socio-cultural environment, past and present, in any society.

Chapter 5

BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

T h e preceding chapters have stressed the point that while there are many commonalities among nations as they march toward total industrialization, there are also many differences as each responds to its own unique heritage and culture. It is the purpose of this chapter and the one that follows to trace briefly the historical development, and emergence of the present environment, of industrial relations in the two cultures—the United States and Japan — w i t h which the study is primarily concerned. A special effort will be made to provide some insight concerning the impact of context upon ways of thinking about the basic functions of industrial relations dealt with in Chapter 1. T h i s chapter will be of interest primarily to those readers in countries other than the United States who may not be entirely familiar with the historical background and environmental context of American business. Similarly, Chapter 4 will present a treatment of the subject that will be most useful to those who are not fully acquainted with the historical and current frameworks of industrial relations in Japan.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL R E L A T I O N S It is extremely difficult to cull and sort from the vast literature of economic and business history those outstanding facts which seem to have been most relevant in shaping the course of industrial relations in the United States. Yet the indelible stamp of "what has been" cannot be ignored if one is to understand "what is." A brief

46

T H E OTHER

WORKER

chronology of forces and events during the mere two hundred years since the birth of the United States will show this to be true. 1 T h r e e periods have been selected for ease in organizing this very brief statement of historical development. According to W. W. Rostow, the "take-off period" of industrialization in the United States was from 1843 to i860. Yet it seems worth while to include in the first period roughly the hundred years prior to the outbreak of the Civil W a r in i860. T h e second period has been selected to coincide with the era of explosive growth in industry from i860 to 1910. T h e third historical period is from 1 9 1 0 to 1950, during which a good deal of rationalization and consolidation took place. Following these brief sections dealing with historical development, some social, economic, and political aspects of the American industrial relations scene since 1950 will be presented under the heading of "Contemporary Context of Industrial Relations." Pre-Civil War Era Certain basic forces were working both for and against industrialization of the newly created United States of America during the first century of its existence. T h o u g h less well known than the forces encouraging industrial growth, there were certain obstacles to be overcome which tended to delay the initiating of substantial industrial growth until about 1840. Both sets of forces will be discussed in this section. T h e fundamental matter of national resources can hardly be stressed too much as a continuing positive influence upon the growth of American industry. R i c h land, abundant water, and a network of rivers and lakes to connect mines and factories with markets were all extremely helpful. T h e influence of a seemingly boundless frontier and limitless resources never should be underestimated in either psychological or material terms. Individualism, optimism, energy, and a willingness to take great risks are only a few traits of America's industrial pioneers which find their roots in this unique frontier psychology. 2 Early social conditions, too, undoubtedly were highly favorable to industrial growth. America prior to the eighteenth century could almost be described as a nation without traditions which might in any way impede industrialization. Feudalism, class structure, jealousy of church and state, threat of foreign invasion—these and other problems prevailing in other parts of the world simply did not plague the bold new world. Instead, social and religious freedom contributed to the very

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

47

spirit which encouraged rapid and widespread industrial growth. Protestantism, with its devotion to hard work, material rewards, and "success" for the individual gave a heavenly sanction to ambition and self-sacrifice. T h e Enlightenment in political thought, furthermore, reinforced the "American spirit" with its emphasis upon egalitarianism and hostility to strong central government. In an excellent description of the current ideology of American businessmen, reference is made to these same basic characteristics of the early environment: " T h e r e is no country in the Western world in which the businessman has had the assured self-confidence in his own merits and the importance of his work which he has had in the United States. If the Reformation made work respectable, the Enlightenment, by assaulting the status of unspecialized, leisured aristocrats, has made it possible for 'busy' people to believe with unabashed confidence that they are the crucial elements in our society." 3 O n the other hand, contrary to popular opinion, economic conditions during the nation's first one hundred years did not particularly favor industrialization. Perhaps the overshadowing economic fact of life was the hostility and competition of British commercial and manufacturing classes. In addition, American industry was plagued by high labor costs, lack of social capital, lack of experience with credit instruments, scarcity of native skills, and an unstable currency. A s mentioned earlier, Rostow places the take-off period of industrialization in the United States from 1843 t o l 8 6 o , when a definite shift away from agriculture toward urban and industrial employment became recognizable. It is quite true that there was a beginning, and fairly substantial growth, during the latter part of the period between the Revolution and the Civil War. But the explosion of American industry was not to take place until later. O n the other hand, this early era did initiate many administrative and technological advances upon which later industrial growth depended, including the important application of steam power both to manufacturing operations and to the transportation industry. T h e seedbed of industrial growth was prepared and nurtured in many ways. Early experiments with unionism on a local, craft basis paved the way for the modern labor movement. O f t e n cited as the first U.S. trade union, the journeymen shoemakers of Philadelphia organized as early as 1792. Additional unions of shoemakers, carpenters, and printers were formed in Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York, and Boston during the next ten years.

48

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Other local craft unions, sometimes referred to as "journeymen's protective associations," were formed around 1800. But it was not until after the mid-century mark that unions were organized beyond the local level and began to resemble the modern structure of trade unionism. It is interesting to note that unions appeared first among skilled tradesmen rather than the cotton mill hands, the home workers on piece rates, and other exploited groups. As in Britain, the building trades and other skilled crafts were among the first to be organized. During this same pre-Civil War period, capital accumulation in commerce and manufacturing took place. Northern industrialists, with the tide of the times in their favor, argued with southern planters over the virtues and vices, respectively, of high protective tariffs. Such was the climate of American society as it stood on the brink of Civil War—a war which ended, not only in social reform, but also in political and economic realignments which provided initial and sustaining force for America's dramatic industrial boom. Explosion

of Industry

(1860-1910)

It is important to realize that only after the Civil War settled once and for all the various basic conflicts between planter and manufacturer (generally in favor of the latter) was the path clear for optimum industrial growth. The decades following cessation of hostilities in 1865 witnessed an industrial expansion in the United States which at that time was unparalled in world history. One authority, describing the growth of manufactures during this period as "fantastic," goes on to point out that "in i860, America had been the world's fourth most important industrial power; by 1894, it had surpassed all other countries in industry. In fact, in that year America produced more than the British Isles and Germany combined." 4 The postwar political climate hardly could have been more hospitable. American industry throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century enjoyed the privileges of high protective tariffs. A beneficient government made land grants to the railroads, and to individuals under the Homestead Act, which greatly enlarged the market area for industrial goods. Active encouragement of immigrants to provide much needed man power resulted in an almost unbelievable wave of about 23 million new Americans of foreign origin from i860 to 1910. The bulk of these immigrants came from southern and eastern Europe and reflected cultures, languages,

I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

49

and religions quite different from those of the earlier American settlers. When one considers that the total U.S. population in 1910 was only about 92 million, the magnitude and impact of this tidal wave of immigration can be appreciated more fully. 5 T h e late 1800s and the first decade of the 1900s proved to be a particularly significant period in American industrialization. It was in 1880 that the U.S. entered "an advanced stage of industrialization" according to the criterion, mentioned in Chapter 1, of having less than half its population engaged in primary production (agriculture, forestry, and fishing). In that year, the percentage of gainfully employed persons in primary industries was 49.9. A decade later, the percentage had dropped to 43.4, and the speed of the industrial advance may be seen from the fact that by 1910 only 31.6 per cent of the gainfully employed were still in primary industries. Conversely, an additional measure of the advanced industrial society is the per cent of gainfully occupied population in tertiary industries (trade, transportation, communication, and domestic, personal, and professional service). In 1880, the percentage in such industries was 26.4; by 1910 the percentage had climbed to 37.3.® While many other measures could be cited, these data indicate that, from the rubble of civil war, a burgeoning, vital industrial nation had emerged by the turn of the century. T h e concomitant movement toward monopoly and concentration, which started soon after the Civil War under such early leaders of industry as Andrew Carnegie, J o h n D. Rockefeller, and J . P. Morgan, gained new momentum in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. Huge accumulation and increasingly widespread ownership of capital, the accompanying separation of owner and manager, and bureaucratization in industrial organization were accompanying developments. Social relations at work inevitably were changed with the resulting greater division of work and increasing mechanization. Professional managers, and the investment bankers behind them, had little contact with, or knowledge of, actual production processes or the workers who manned ever lengthening production lines. T h e significant impact of all these changes upon industrial relations was direct and clear. Opposing concepts of "capital" and "labor," which no longer were confined to the realm of theoretical discussion, experienced direct confrontation in the cold realities of the market place. It is not surprising, therefore, that this period also witnessed the birth of the modern U.S. labor movement. T h e Knights of Labor, the first great union in the nation, was created,

50

T H E OTHER

WORKER

flowered, and collapsed between 1865 and 1890. Of a more permanent nature was the American Federation of Labor which, in 1886, was comprised of thirteen national unions with a total membership of approximately 150,000. Bitter strikes characterized the rough-and-tumble militancy of immaturity in the labor movement. T h e railroad strikes of 1877 and the Homestead strikes in 1892 were as hard-fought and bitter as any battles in military history. A t the same time, urbanization was creating new social problems at the community level. In 1850, only 15 per cent of the American people lived in cities; by 1900 almost 40 per cent were urban dwellers. 7 New relationships, therefore, were emerging in the worker's off-job life as well as on his job. Overcrowding, delinquency, and race and ethnic prejudice are only a few of the social problems that emerged with rapid urbanization. T h e point to be emphasized here is that during the period of vast and rapid change, new problems and new opportunities faced both workers and managers, as individuals and as members of emerging social groups. In these changes, and the human adjustments to them, may be found the genesis of the complex "web of rules" stressed by recent writers as "the center of attraction in an industrial-relations system." 8 It is perhaps correct to say that we have had industrial relations problems ever since one man decided to work for another. Yet there is no doubt that the character of industrial relations is the manifestation of conditions and problems peculiar to a particular phase of industrialization. Primitive societies enjoy the dubious advantage of having to deal only with relatively simple industrial relationships. Highly complex advanced industrial societies must accept the burden of far more difficult and sophisticated problems. It was during the latter half of the nineteenth century that conditions and problems in the American economy became such that they initiated the kinds of responses from workers and management which may be identified as true forerunners of present-day industrial relations. Rationalization

and Consolidation

(1910-1950)

U p o n this foundation, then, American industry and industrial relations were to continue their expansion and gradual maturity. H o w to tame and train the healthy but rambunctious industrial child was the problem to be faced by members of a succession of management schools of thought that characterized the first half of the twentieth century. T h e period from 1910 to 1950 combined

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

51

growth with consolidation; exhuberant youth with some acceptance—albeit reluctant—of responsibility. W h i l e it will not be possible to deal in detail with the many developments related to patterns of industrial relations emerging during this period, at least a few high lights should be mentioned. Perhaps the best introduction to this period is simply to say that, for the first time, labor became a major and distinct force in society. In the responses of both managers and workers to the complex and perplexing problems accompanying this tremendously significant phenomenon may be found many clues to the patterns of industrial relations prevailing today in the United States. O n e such response was the mounting recognition by both employees and employers of the need for collective representation. T r a d e unions continued to gain acceptance during this period as the logical instrument for gaining and enforcing worker demands. From a total union membership of about half a million in 1900, the ranks of organized labor grew to more than four million by 1920, dropped to a little over three million during the depression of the early 1930s, climbed to between 10 and n million by the end of 1941, and rose to some 14 to 16 million by the close of W o r l d W a r II. A s mentioned in the preceding section, the American Federation of Labor was formed in 1886, and by 1933 its total membership was slightly more than two million. But in 1935 dissidents in the A F L formed the original C I O (Committee for Industrial Organizations) composed of eight powerful national unions led by the United Mine Workers' John L. Lewis. Differences between the A F L and these eight unions resulted in the latter's suspension and ultimate expulsion from the federation. In 1938, the C I O adopted a constitution and changed its name to the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Aggressive, well-financed organizing drives, conducted during a period of favorable administrations both in Washington and most industrialized states, boosted total membership of all U.S. trade unions from about four million when the C I O was first formed in 1935 to over fourteen million by 1945, the year characterized by Reynolds as "the high-water mark in union penetration of the economy." 9 A f t e r almost two decades of separation and bitter conflict, a joint committee from the two federations reached a unanimous decision to merge and create once again a single organization to be known as the A F L - C I O . It is this peak federation, created in 1955, which today represents all unions, other than the independents.

52

T H E OTHER

WORKER

More will be said about the current status of trade-union memberships in the next section, which deals with the contemporary context of U.S. industrial relations. On the other side of the coin, various management organizations, such as the National Association of Manufacturers and a number of more specialized industrial associations, were looked to hopefully by employers as the most useful collective vehicle for counterattack. T h e somewhat amorphous "Open Shop Campaign," conducted with vigor by these groups, sought both to re-emphasize the absolute authority of employers and to discredit trade unions. Of far greater significance than any actual success in forcing a nonunion or "open" shop, this campaign forced employers to "concern themselves with labor as a problem rather than 'solve' it by simply dismissing the worker who would not do." 10 During this period, therefore, the groundwork was being laid for the later legal requirement that management bargain "in good faith" with freely chosen representatives of employees. Thus, both labor and management were equipped with political voices and economic strength which have had much to do with the ways in which accomodation to industrialization has been achieved. Not only the more obvious areas such as employment, working hours, physical conditions, and remuneration have been affected, but almost every aspect of industrial relations has been at least indirectly influenced by collective representation. A further development of special significance during the early 1900s was the scientific management movement, particularly the contributions of Frederick W. Taylor. In a sense, scientific management was the first of a series of attempts to rationalize the relationships created by emergence of the twin goliaths—management and labor. Like most such movements, it was peculiarly appropriate to the broader context of the times in which it was promulgated. T o the mounting concern and frustration of those involved in labor-management relations, it brought the hope of "science," with the system and logic one expects from it. And, to the extent that workers and employers would "co-operate" with the measurements and controls of scientific management, it was even hoped their growing conflicts would be resolved. While neither American employers nor employees found the ultimate solution to their mutual problems in the philosophy or techniques of scientific management, there is little doubt that the movement had a profound influence upon the development of industrial relations. In an effort to find the "one best way" to per-

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

53

form each task, not only technical aspects of the job itself were studied but also human abilities and efforts best suited to job performance were analyzed. Such functions as employment, selection, training, and evaluation necessarily became the object of increasing attention in the drive for rationalism in production. Hard on the heels of scientific management came new approaches to the handling of industrial relationships. These were, in most cases, supplementary rather than alternate in nature. In appreciating the cumulative development of industrial relations it is important to realize that none of the major influences upon that development—whether it be scientific management of the first several decades of the present century or the human relations movement of more recent years—will ever be completely supplanted and discarded by subsequent shifts in focus. Rather, each evolutionary phase represents continued effort to tune more accurately the human adjustment required in a dynamic industrial civilization to the nature and demands of the times. When sufficient time perspective is employed, this cumulative adaptive process can be seen as more significant than the stage-by-stage disruptive process so often stressed. For example, the initial creation of "employment departments" under the direction of employment managers during the first two decades of the twentieth century was a response, directly or indirectly, to such diverse influences as an increasing general social consciousness, continuing urbanization, increasing pressures from union organizations, the beginnings of some interest in government controls over business, and the imperatives of World War I. In turn, these departments, and the organizations of which they were a part, adjusted to changing needs through such devices as the staff-line form of organization. A n even more specific example of adaptation may be seen in the emergence of safety as a major industrial relations function. This development was a clear response to workmen's compensation laws, which unequivocally established management's responsibility, regardless of cause, in industrial accidents. In any discussion of outstanding developments in industrial relations during the period 1910 to 1950, some mention must be made of an emerging theoretical framework, a body of knowledge, and the accompanying skills, known at the time as "human relations in industry." Generally recognized as beginning with the brilliant research of Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, W. J. Dickson, and others at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric

54

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Company, the early human relations school, as well as more recent elaborations and modifications of their philosophy, continues to exert a profound influence in the field today. 1 1 More will be said in later sections of this chapter concerning recent developments in human relations, organizational behavior, and other aspects of present-day industrial relations. Several decades ago, Roethlisberger envisaged the early scope of human relations as: T o the growing body of data that is resulting from the study of concrete situations of h u m a n beings and work in an organized h u m a n activity, to the point of view and methods characteristic of such study, and to the results obtained therefrom both in terms of more explicit skills and of better theoretical formulation for adjusting to and administering change, I give the name human relations. Some of the problems with which it is concerned are: (1) general problems of communications and understandi n g between individuals, between individuals and groups, and between groups under different conditions and varying relations; (3) general problems of securing action and cooperation under different conditions and in varying formal organizations; and (3) general problems of maintaining individual and organizational equilibrium through change. 1 2

Bendix, in discussing industrial authority and its supporting value systems, states that "attention to human relations has arisen out of the managerial problems incident to the bureaucratization of industry. It has also arisen out of the discrepancy between a people's continued desire for success and the increasing disutility of the Puritan virtues or the tenets of Darwinian morality." 13 Within this context, some historical perspective is provided for this extremely significant trend in American industrial relations. A final trend which conditioned industrial relations in the United States between 1910 and 1950 deserves brief mention. T h i s is the increasingly important role played by the national government and, to a somewhat lesser extent, by government at the state level. It was during this period, for example, that much of the social legislation was passed which, with various additions and amendments, provides the legal framework within which industrial relationships are implemented today. Further reference to the role of government, and a brief description of relevant laws, are reserved for the following section, which describes present patterns of industrial relations in the United States. W h i l e never exercising a dominant role in determining the course of U.S. industrial relations, the legal framework within which important management decisions must be made has tended to become increasingly circumscribed as the functions of government extend in many directions.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

55

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S T h e pattern of industrial relations found in the United States at the present time is a product of the historical heritage just described, the diverse aspects of contemporary environment and culture, and the universal logic inherent in the industrialization process referred to in preceding chapters. In the remainder of this chapter, we shall sketch in general terms the present-day environmental context within which U.S. industrial relations operate. Against this background, and that provided in the following chapter regarding Japan, the comparative analysis of major industrial relations functions contained in Part II may be more meaningful. For convenience, we shall resort to the conventional trichotomy useful in describing major aspects of any given society: economic, social, and governmental. Rather than giving mere descriptions, however, an attempt will be made to illustrate how these environmental forces influence the American philosophy and practice of industrial relations. Economic

Conditions

T h e character of industrial relations continues to be influenced by an economy of abundance and seemingly limitless natural resources. W i t h few exceptions, U.S. farms, forests, and mines can yield the raw materials necessary for an ever increasing industrial plant. W h i l e hardly a "frontier philosophy," the influence of such a "philosophy of abundance" cannot fail to influence employers and employees in meeting the demands of industrialism. Gross national product totaled $556 billion in 1962, the year in which U.S. field work for this study was conducted. A t the same time, national income stood at $456 billion, and total personal income was $442 billion. (Comparable figures for 1965 were $680 billion, $559 billion, and $535 billion.) 1 4 Political as well as economic considerations at times advise against exploitation of domestic resources, and indicate the wisdom of substantial imports from other nations. Yet, the impact of latent national sufficiency upon patterns of behavior at all levels of U.S. industry seems quite pervasive and should not be overlooked. H u m a n resources, too, in terms of numbers and skills seem generally adequate for the needs of a dynamic economy. Dislocations and temporary shortages of course exist. But in over-all terms,

56

THE OTHER

WORKER

for example, we see little of the upward pressure on hours of work which accompanies conditions of national labor scarcity—in fact the present trend is just the reverse. Total population of the United States in 1963 stood at 186.7 million (194.6 million in 1965). T h e total labor force was 74.7 million (78.4 million), while civilian labor force figures at the same time indicated 67.8 million employed (75.6 million), of whom only 5.2 million (4.6 million) were engaged in agriculture. T h e unemployed, while of continuing concern, amounted to only 4.0 million (3.5 million), or 5.6 per cent (4.6 per cent) of the civilian labor force. T o a dynamic, free economy with substantial mobility, this does not seem an excessive number of persons, many of whom may be "between jobs," seeking employment for the first time, or suffering only temporary layoff. It should be added that 44 per cent of the unemployed in 1962 were without work for 4 weeks or less, and 64 per cent were without work for 10 weeks or less.15 There is no need to present elaborate statistics in this discussion. It is important, however, to be able to visualize certain trends in changing occupational patterns as they seem relevant to a number of industrial relations functions. Mention has already been made of the fact that the United States in the 1880s was the fourth nation to reach the level of industrialization at which less than half of the population was engaged in primary industries. A t the beginning of the 1950s, another highly significant milestone was passed in occupational distribution. As one writer points out, it was at that time that "the U.S. became the only large industrial country to have more workers engaged in service activities, including trade, finance, transportation, communications, public utilities, and government, than in the production of goods, including manufacturing, mining, construction, and agriculture." 1 8 Such critical shifts in occupation patterns have a profound influence upon the character of a nation's industrial relations and are studied carefully by representatives of labor and management. One important and obvious such affect, which is of special concern to union leaders, is the accompanying shift from easier-to-organize manufacturing workers to white-collar workers, who remain notoriously cool to unions. Turning to the context of markets, and especially to the aspect of competition, there are a number of characteristics which clearly have had a bearing on the U.S. patterns of industrial relations. This point is made by Dunlop when he suggests, " T h e character of competition is a measure of the degree of control over products,

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

57

price or other aspects of sale which in turn is decisive to the control or elbow room and discretion which the actors have in setting the rules of the workplace, including compensation." 17 Markets are not measured solely in terms of number of people or potential spending power. Yet such figures shed some light, and set some outside limits, in market analysis. It has already been mentioned that population in the United States in 1962 approximated 187 million, of whom about 62.7 million civilians were actually engaged in nonagricultural jobs. Working an average of 40.4 hours per week, production workers in manufacturing establishments grossed an average of $96.56 per week in 1962, with a range in weekly earnings from $61.18 in apparel firms to $127.67 in motor vehicle and equipment firms. On an hourly basis, therefore, wages of production workers averaged $2.39 in all manufacturing firms, ranging from $1.69 in apparel to $2.99 in motor vehicles and equipment. Outside of manufacturing, average weekly earnings for non-supervisory workers ranged from $65.95 i n retail trade to $122.47 i n contract construction; on an average hourly basis the range was from $1.75 in retail trade to $3.31 in contract construction. 18 On an annual basis, per capita personal income in the United States climbed to $2,371 in 1962 ($2,727 in 1965). Even when measured in constant (1958) dollars, the figures were $2,262 in 1962, and $2,507 in 1965.19 As mentioned earlier, gross national product, at the 1962 annual rate, amounted to $556 billion, while total national income totaled $456 billion in the same year. A t least a rough conception of the magnitude of domestic market potential in the United States may be gained from these few figures. A further market characteristic is the significance of international competition in a nation's total market. While acutely aware of the disproportionate influence the international sector of a country's trade can exert, still the fact that exports of goods and services constitute about 4 per cent of gross national product in the United States as compared, for example, to 10 per cent for Japan and an average of 20 per cent for western European countries, cannot be discounted. 20 Compensation, conditions of work, and other rules of the workplace are affected in the United States by competitive conditions abroad, but naturally far less so than in countries more dependent upon foreign trade. There is much evidence, however, that the international sector will increase rapidly. A t mid-1963, for example, U.S. firms estimated that expenditures for property, plant, and equipment by their foreign affiliates would

58

T H E OTHER

WORKER

amount to about $5 billion during the year, an 8 per cent increase over the previous year. 2 1 W i t h special relevance to the aspect of competition, the degree of concentration in the business population is a further important market consideration. A l t h o u g h most of the nation's business concerns are small in size, it is a well-known fact that in the presentday economy, in which technology and mass markets have made possible large-scale production and selling, the bulk of employment is concentrated in relatively few larger companies. A b o u t 1 per cent of the almost 5 million U.S. business firms employ more than 100 workers. These few firms, on the other hand, account for well over half of all paid employment. T h e "leadership impact" of large firms (and large unions) upon industrial relations patterns is an important force in the development of industrial relations in the United States. Because the significance of subcontracting in Japan will be discussed in the following chapter, it may be well to comment briefly on this practice in the United States. As in any complex economic environment, a good bit of interdependence, both formal and informal, exists among U.S. firms. Subcontracting, purchase to specifications, and other similar arrangements are common. It is not an exaggeration to say that "make-or-buy" decisions are among the most frequent concerns of management. It is important to appreciate that in the United States such decisions are no different from other business decisions and, in general, are made primarily on the basis of price, quality, or other competitive criteria. W h i l e it may be equally appropriate to consider the important matter of labor organization as either an economic or a social phenomenon of an industrial relations system, a brief discussion will be included here because of the distinctly economic orientation of present-day "business unionism" in the United States. First, a few words concerning the structure of trade unionism in the United States may be in order. T h e r e are three principal levels, or types of organizational units, in the over-all union structure. These are: (1) local unions, which are the "branches" or "chapters" of the national and international groups (2) national and international unions of workers in a particular trade or industry; and (3) the peak federation, A F L - C I O . T h e national unions today occupy an undisputed role as the real source and center of power in the trade-union world. T h e United Steelworkers, one of the largest affiliates of the A F L - C I O , claims membership of about 1 mil-

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED S1TATES

59

lion; the largest union is an independent, the International Teamsters Union, with a membership of about 1.5 million. T o t a l union membership reached a peak in 1959 of 18.2 million, although as mentioned earlier, greatest penetration was reached in 1945 when the maximum percentage (35.8) of nonagricultural employment was attained. Of the 18.0 million union members in 1964, 15.2 million were in unions affiliated with the A F L C I O and the remaining 2.8 million were in independent unions. Some idea of the impact of union organization may be gained from the fact that union members in 1964 accounted for about 22 per cent of the total labor force, and approximately 29 per cent of all employment in nonagricultural establishments. 22 It is not possible to describe in detail the highly significant influence of labor unions upon industrial relations patterns in the United States. However, four important characteristics of U.S. unions may be noted here: (1) most American unions are clearly "business unions"; (2) bargaining units are quite narrowly defined (usually a national union bargains with a single employer) ; (3) unionism is decentralized in the sense that each national union charts its own course; and (4) the government plays a smaller role in wage determination than in most other countries. Perhaps most significant of the problems facing American organized labor is the threat of automation. T h i s fast-moving development is tending to eliminate jobs among the traditionally highly organized groups in heavy manufacturing industries. Conversely, it is creating new jobs for white-collar workers w h o have always been cool toward unionism in the United States. Approximately 23 million Americans are now employed in government, selling, banking, and insurance—all industries in which unions have had relatively little success in organizing workers. T h e r e is little doubt that labor unions will continue to exert a tremendous influence upon U.S. industrial relations in the years ahead. Yet, it is important to realize that organized labor is in a transitional state as the result of forces beyond the control of union leaders. As such, the union role in industrial relations must be reappraised frequently in the light of changing events. For example, with the increasing role of government in labor relations, it is only natural that there has been a response in the form of greater political action by unions. But there is little doubt that such activity is only supplementary to the U.S. union's major emphasis upon short-run economic objectives through collective bargaining.

6o

THE OTHER WORKER

Within the limitations of this chapter, it is not possible to develop all facets of the current economic environment which have a bearing on industrial relations in the United States. Many other characteristics, such as the proportion of total costs accounted for by labor costs, the nature of demand in various industries, or the rate of business turnover for firms of varying sizes, could be mentioned. Instead, it is necessary now to turn attention to certain social implications relevant to the central theme of the discussion. Social

Conditions

Social institutions, such as the family system, quite clearly shape or control certain relationships between managers and workers at the industrial workplace. The impact upon employment of the family—the oldest and most fundamental of human groups— and upon compensation, motivation, and many other functions of industrial relations is, to varying degrees, significant. The traditional, typically rural, extended family unit, with its influence for stability, obviously has been drastically modified by industrialization. Particularly in an urbanized, mobile industrial environment is this true. Thus, in the United States we find a family system referred to in such terms as nonextended, nuclear, conjugal, isolated—and in some cases, simply modern. High mobility, rebellion against parental autocracy, weakening of family ties, increasing reliance on the attractions of urban life, and many other aspects of industrial life have struck lethal blows to the traditional concept of family in society. The resulting isolation of the family role in contemporary U.S. society has led to a separation of home life and work life that lies close to the core of many human relations problems in industry. Attitudes and values projected from traditional familial relationships to the workplace can be among the most stabilizing and persistent forces conditioning work life and personal life. If such projection does not take place, substitutes must be found within the industrial complex. A further social force of relevance to industrial relations may be seen in the restraints upon occupational mobility condoned in any given society. It would seem that in all nations we can identify certain restraints upon freedom and mobility which find wide acceptance. In the United States, democracy tends to be critical of immutable barriers based upon family, religion, educational achievements, and other such bases for discrimination quite acceptable in other nations of the world. It is a wonder, therefore,

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN T H E UNITED STATES

6l

not only to people throughout the world but to all thoughtful Americans, that discrimination based upon the conveniently obvious basis of race has shown such amazing resistance to increasing public pressure for reform. In spite of tremendous strides made through the civil rights legislation of recent years, it is quite likely that some residual of the traditional preference among employers in all parts of the United States for white workers persists even today.23 T o many Americans, this is a most irrational point of view. Yet this preference reflects more than the existence of an unfavorable stereotype in the minds of employers concerning the Negro characteristics and qualifications. It also reflects an even more important barrier posed by resistance among white workers to any attempt to integrate Negro workers with the rest of the work force. A n eloquent spokesman for the Negroes of America—and the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize winner—the late Martin Luther King, Jr., suggested a possible path to enforce employment equality, as follows: "A law designed to operate in the fashion of the Wagner Act may well be the answer to some of the problems of civil rights enforcement during the next decade." 24 Serious and widespread attempts are being made to erase in fact—and in heart—as well as in law, such discrimination. But the fact that introducing Negroes into higher levels of employment is still seen as a special problem is quite clear from the following suggestions concerning professional, technical, and management groups (1) top management must specifically support the move; (2) the company needs an explicit policy covering the employment of Negro personnel; (3) the Negro candidate should be as thoroughly qualified as any white applicant; (4) the attitudes of the immediate work groups should be considered in making the pilot placement; and (5) the immediate work group should be informed that a Negro will be joining it. 25 T h e burden of discrimination in industry, no matter what its basis, will continue to exist and to be debated for many years to come. Man's apparent desire for stratification takes many forms, and its effects are felt throughout the industrial world. As one writer so aptly states: "Cultural differences cause some surprising problems. . . . Complexion in Peru, religion in the Near East, social status elsewhere—each of these may impose specific limitations on the design of an organization." 26 A n additional social characteristic of the American industrial scene seems particularly relevant to the fabric of industrial rela-

6a

T H E OTHER

WORKER

dons: the employment of women in the labor force. A t the present time, about 37 per cent of all American women 14 years old and over are in the labor force, with the largest participation rates among those 20 to 24 and 45 to 54 years of age. It is interesting, too, that 62 per cent of these women workers are married. 27 It is becoming increasingly common for women to enter the work force as soon as their children reach the age of compulsory schooling. W i t h women already accounting for more than one-third of all employed workers, and with every indication that their ranks will continue to increase, the distaff impact upon industrial relations in the United States should not be underestimated. In closing this section dealing with social forces, at least a few comments should be added concerning the prevailing U.S. business ideology. T h e term, as used here, is entirely neutral and refers specifically to certain aspects of the prevailing system of values which seem to actuate the behavior of American management in its dealings with workers. T h e historical résumé earlier in this chapter ended at 1950, the beginning of a decade in which the engulfing popularity and acceptance of the human relations school was to reach its zenith and then be sorely challenged. 28 In assessing the current philosophy of management in the United States, it seems clear that, while there has been a healthy retreat from the naïve excesses of the early 1950s, the imprint of the h u m a n relations school has been deep and indelible. Some writers confuse management practices with management ideology in their appraisal of the current American scene. In such instances, reference is made to a resurgence of "directiveness," to declining use of committees in decision making, or to similar patterns of behavior. W e tend to agree with Bendix's clearly stated conclusion that "Mayo's ideological synthesis has found only limited acceptance in managerial practice, but that its contribution to managerial ideology has been pervasive." 29 T w o basic values typically identified with American management ideology have been (1) individualism and (2) importance of work. A s mentioned earlier in this chapter, emergence of these values has been traced to the confluence of the Puritan movement in religion and the Enlightenment in political thought. More than a quarter century of the research findings and teachings of the human relations approach have gradually, yet undeniably, altered these basic precepts. So-called "rugged individualism," with its inherent self-interest, has been reshaped somewhat to the mold of individual adaptability, responsibility, and social involvement.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

63

Emphasis upon the importance of work per se has been influenced gradually by increasing concern with the contribution which work can make to new achievements in health, education—even to world peace. Yet even today, as W i l l i a m E. Henry points out: T h e successful executive represents a crystallization of many of the attitudes and values generally accepted by middle-class American society. The value of accumulation and achievement, of self-directedness and independent thought, and their rewards in prestige and status and property are found in this group. But they also pay the price of holding these values and profiting from them. Uncertainty, constant activity, the continual fear of losing ground, the inability to be introspectively leisurely, the ever present fear of failure, and the artificial limitations put upon their emotionalized interpersonal relations—these are some of the costs of this role. 30 Furthermore, the persistent caution prevailing among Americans concerning the role of government in business is summarized admirably in John Chamberlain's observations that "at its best, Government provides the institutional framework. . . . Where Government tries to substitute itself for the economic motor there is inevitable confusion. . . . W e live in a time of talk about the new frontier. But the power of any frontier, 'new' or old, is the unharnessed man free to walk at will over the horizon. . . . It is business which has kept the pioneer's adaptability and ingenuity a l i v e . " 3 1 A closer examination of the governmental role is provided in the section which follows. Role

of

Government

W h i l e the influence of central government upon industrial relations in the United States undoubtedly increased substantially during the first half of the present century, there has been relatively little real change in this respect since 1950. American businessmen and, indeed, most labor leaders as well, share with mixed emotions the belief that " B i g Government" has encroached steadily upon the freedom of all parties in the industrial relations field. In some respects this is true, but in order to retain perspective it is necessary to appreciate the fact that, when compared with most other industrialized nations of the world, the U.S. industrial relations system remains relatively unfettered by government controls. Except for the passage of the 1959 Labor-Management R e f o r m Act (Landrum-Griffin Act) which required disclosure of certain information by labor unions, and enactment of far-reaching civil

64

T H E OTHER

WORKER

rights legislation in 1964, few major developments in the governmental role have taken place since 1950. The foundations for most existing social legislation were laid during the first half of the present century. For example, the first successful workmen's compensation laws were passed in the state of Washington in 1 9 1 1 . The purpose of these laws is to provide compensation to a workman for disability or death suffered from an accident (and, in all but a very few acts, from an occupational disease) arising out of and in the course of his employment. Then, in 1933 during the depression era, the historic Social Security Act was enacted. Amended many times since its passage, this increasingly comprehensive program falls into three major parts: (1) old-age, survivors, and disability insurance, (2) unemployment insurance, and (3) public assistance. The first two parts, of course, have greatest relevance to the field of industrial relations. Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance is the only program operated solely by the federal government. Supported by a tax on the worker's earnings, this insurance covers almost all jobs in which people work for wages or salaries, as well as most work of self-employed persons, whether in business or on a farm. If the worker is an employee, he and his employer share the tax for this program equally. Unemployment insurance, on the other hand, is administered primarily by the states under statutes drawn up in each state in accordance with federal requirements. The entire tax for unemployment assistance is paid by employers. Earlier years also witnessed legislation regulating hours of work, minimum rates of pay, and collective bargaining. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the first comprehensive statutory minimum wage was provided. At the same time, the concept of a "standard work week," beyond which overtime rates of compensation must be paid, was established. Several more specialized laws were also passed which called for the payment of prevailing wage rates by employers holding government contracts. In addition, the whole range of bargaining relationships between employers and unions was subjected to legal regulation, first under the National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) of 1935 and then under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Law). Under the latter, both labor and management are required to bargain "in good faith," and are guilty of "unfair labor practice" if they refuse to do so. It is difficult to distinguish between those actions of government that are directly significant and those that are only indirectly

I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

65

relevant to the field of industrial relations. If for example, only those laws directly regulating such matters as hours of work, minimum wages, or health and safety standards were considered, the role of government would be rather restricted and easy to describe. But, with the obvious implications for industrial relations of almost every sphere of governmental activity, such a restrictive view seems naive, indeed. Many different types of government activity influence the pattern and practice of industrial relations. T a x policy clearly affects questions of compensation at all levels of industry; tariff decisions easily can be related to decisions concerning employment and compensation; social legislation, such as old-age and survivors insurance, unemployment compensation, and protection of child labor affect various industrial relations functions. Finally, vast military, defense, and space programs, with related expenditures totaling many billions of dollars each year, exert considerable influence upon employment, compensation, and almost every other aspect of industrial relations. Such government contracts typically are placed with the larger manufacturing companies, with the inevitable effect of heightening competition for already scarce manpower resources and setting standards in compensation and working conditions which must be met by smaller organizations. Added to the long arm of the central government in influencing industrial relations are the various state laws dealing with such problems as the following: picketing; strikes, especially when public utilities are involved; union security; jurisdictional disputes; political contributions; and fair-employment practices. SUMMARY It may be useful now to sketch, in summary form, the impact of the environmental factors discussed in this chapter upon prevailing relationships between employers and workers in the United States. Neither the present-day manager, nor those he manages, are quite the same as their forebears. The stage of industrialism presently achieved, indigenous cultural values which have both influenced and been influenced by social evolution, and the inherent logic and demands of the industrialization process itself have together shaped the attitudes and behavior of all parties to the industrial relations system. Traditional individual initiative and personal independence

66

T H E OTHER

WORKER

on the part of workers have been tempered by the very process which has provided them with the highest level of material wealth known to mankind. Increasing size of enterprise, vastly more complex technology, and continuing refinements in specialization of work have all demanded a dependence (and interdependence) unimagined in the early days of industrial development. Workers, of course, have responded to these changes in ways which should not have been entirely unpredictable. For example, increasing dependence on factory employment created an urbanization movement which, in turn, drastically altered the family role and other aspects of family life. Isolation and dependence of the individual in the industrial complex stimulated organization for both protection and improvement of the worker's economic and social status. Support for the worker in the threatening environment of industrialization was also sought and secured from government. Protection against impoverishment in old age, accident and illness associated with work, and the miseries of unemployment have all been achieved through social legislation. In a sense, it seems that the American worker has demanded from government some of the same sorts of protection that he found suspect, and rejected as paternalistic when offered earlier by employers. Through membership in labor unions, and with increasing recognition from government, workers have found an "independence" which may be a substitute for, though certainly not a duplicate of, the rugged individualism characteristic of earlier times. Employers, on the other hand, have also responded to the demands of a rapidly maturing industrialism. T h e unrestrained capitalists of the latter nineteenth century have come a long way since those relatively carefree days. T h e hard facts of union organization and increasing governmental controls have had to be accommodated within the traditional framework of a free enterprise system. Various approaches to its relationships with employees have characterized American management as it has responded to the relentless forces of industrialism and accompanying bureaucracy. From the scientific management movement of the early 1900s to the emphasis in management today upon the behavioral sciences and organizational behavior, American businessmen continue to strive for a philosophy and practice of management which is most consistent with the demands of a tremendously large, complex, and interrelated industrial system.

I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S IN T H E U N I T E D STATES

67

We find, then, an industrial society in which both workers and managers value and preserve their traditional freedoms and prerogatives. But, we find, too, a society in which growing recognition of multiple responsibility—both at home and abroad—is forcing reappraisal and adaptation in all phases of industrial relations. T o approach more closely an understanding of the ways in which a nation's workers think and behave in industrial relationships requires some appreciation of the cultural heritage, as well as the stage and nature of industrialization, characterizing the environment within which they live and work. It is this sort of background, for the United States and Japan, that this chapter and the following one are intended to present.

Chapter 4

BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN JAPAN

One of the earliest documents on Japan's employed labor dates back to 1232, and records the wages paid to carpenters who worked on the construction of Kasuga Shrine. 1 Japan's entrance into the process of industrialization, however, actually began in the third quarter of the nineteenth century. Rostow suggests that the "takeoff" of Japan's industrialization occurred during the period 1878— 1900, about half a century later than in the United States.2 Unlike that of the United States, however, where early industrialization primarily meant "transplanting," Japan's modern industrialization required "grafting." Labor-intensive agriculture already had covered most of the available land, arts and handicrafts had reached high levels of skill and craftsmanship, and social relations were highly structured. In other words, a society with a long history of cultural achievement existed to greet the challenge of modern industrialization. It would not be proper to assume that aspects of social relations of the feudal period have survived in present patterns of industrial relations. Such a concept as "feudalism" in characterizing Japan's industrial relations system must be used only in a very restricted sense. But the variety of contemporary patterns of industrial relations has emerged from interaction between the social forces (including the ones existent at the outset of industrialization) and the process of industrialization itself. The purpose of this chapter is to outline the historical and current contexts in which the contemporary pattern of industrial relations in the private sector of Japanese industry must be examined.3

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

69

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S T h r e e distinct periods prior to the emergence of contemporary industrial relations in Japan may be identified: the early period of industrialization from 1868 to 1910; the era of keiei-kazoku-shugi, or "management-familyism" from 1910 to 1930; and the militarism and labor control from 1930 to 1945. Each of these periods will be discussed briefly in this section. Industrialization

and "Primeval" Labor Relations

(1868-1910)

For two or three decades following the conclusion of commercial treaties in 1858 with Holland, Russia, England, France, and the United States, and the Meiji Restoration of 1868, it is believed that 75 to 80 per cent of the gainfully occupied were engaged in primary industries. In agriculture, the average farm size was only 1 hectare (2.47 acres) per agricultural household. T h e rice crop per hectare is estimated to have been 60 to 70 bushels annually, a figure close to the level of agricultural productivity in most Southeast Asian countries of today. T h e net national income, in terms of current U.S. dollars, may have been 60 to 70 dollars per capita annually. In other words, the extent of economic development preceding industrialization may be described as being close to the stage of "primitive stagnation." 4 Industrial and mining production toward the end of the Tokugawa era (1600-1867) had reached the point where largescale mining and handicraft-type factory operations prevailed under the auspices of the Shogunate and local clan governments, and sometimes even private, commercial capital undertook such enterprises. A few governmental efforts, central and local, had been successful in starting Western-style power-driven manufacturing plants. But the bulk of finished products in life came from individual craftsmen who belonged to various craft guilds similar to those found in medieval Europe. Such a guild system, apparently incapable of competing with factory production, was abolished shortly after the Restoration as part of the over-all reform program. T h e basic policy of the new Meiji government was well summarized in the three slogans of the time: shokusan-kogyo, fukokukyohei, and bummei-kaika, respectively referring to the development of industry and commerce, the building of a prosperous na-

70

T H E OTHER

WORKER

tion with military strength, and the cultivation of Western-style civilization. T h e young reformist leaders of the nation, mostly of former bushi (warrior) class, clearly saw the need for modern industrialization in order to protect the country from Western colonialism and to recover tariff autonomy which had been specifically denied in the commercial treaties of 1858. In addition to modernization schemes undertaken for the mines and factories confiscated from the Shogunate and local clan governments, the new centralized government built model factories throughout the country under its direct supervision. Introduction of new technology was hastened by temporary employment of engineers and tradesmen from Western nations, and by university and technical education, part of which was carried out by sending students abroad. A l t h o u g h the government-owned mines and factories were later sold to private-capital groups, the preferential, protective policy of the government for modern mining and industrial establishments long characterized the economic policy of the Meiji era. T h i s policy has sometimes been compared to mercantilism of seventeenth-to-nineteenth-century France and England. It is very likely that the original patterns of organization and employment laid down for the newly established factories resembled closely their models in Western nations. But the pre-existing patterns of social relations inevitably affected the patterns of industrial relations developed in such factories. One important point is the effect of the status system that had existed among bushi themselves, and between bushi and non-bushi classes. Managerial personnel, w h o were later known as shoku-in, inherited the privileges of former bushi class, and enjoyed permanent tenure, received privileged salaries, and lived in special quarters. Factory workers, who would later be identified as ko-in, however, did not share such privileges. Particularly where indirect methods of employment, such as the earlier "contract system," were practiced, the worker's identification was primarily with his trade rather than with his firm, and high labor turnover was frequently observed among skilled as well as unskilled workers. In light industries, which characterized the private sector of the nation's industry for several decades, unskilled and semiskilled labor consisted often of young females from rural villages and local child labor. W i t h stagnant agricultural productivity on the one hand and pressures from commercial capital on the other, exploitation of such workers occurred very commonly, and poor working conditions and high labor turnover prevailed in these industries around

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

71

the turn of the century. T h e type of industrial labor force during this period was often characterized as "dekasegi-gata (migratory), kakeihojo-teki (auxiliary), and tanshin-gata (single) " workers of both sexes. T h e extremely low wages, long hours, and inadequate working conditions of the time are well expressed in the term gensei-teki rodokankei (primeval labor relations) . 5 Development of private, commercial capital had been the basic cause for the economic collapse of the T o k u g a w a feudal system. From among the commercial family groups of the previous era, there evolved a few who successfully survived the turmoil of the time and managed to co-operate with the Meiji government in its course of promoting the nation's trade and industry. H a n d in hand with the government, they first launched into foreign trade and banking, and later added modern mining and manufacturing operations they bought from government. Since the Edo era, employment in merchant families had been characterized by resident apprenticeship from preadolescence, a hierarchical promotion system, total-person commitment, and noren-wake (allowing a longservice employee to set up his own branch of the business with permission to use the merchant's business name). Some of these practices were continued in the Meiji era, among zaibatsu (big financial combines) firms, and formed the basis for the development of patterns of personnel management for the shoku-in class, which, in turn, were to be extended later to major production-level workers in these firms. It should be noted that zaibatsu firms acted, at least until the end of W o r l d W a r II, as primary pattern setters in the nation's industrial relations. One significant concept firmly established among merchant family groups that later exercised considerable influence upon Japan's industrial relations was the concept of kagyo (family business) as the basic form of business enterprise.® T h i s concept assumes a business enterprise as being an eternal venture of a lineage family. T h e head and members of the business family of a given generation are merely considered to be entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the business successfully for the sake of the lineage family which is theoretically to last forever. As a result, the Western concept of individual ownership is not involved. W h e n interpreted in terms of property ownership, the concept of kasan (family property) emerges, which denies individual ownership or share in the family property, whether the person is the head of the family or otherwise. T h e property belongs to ie (loosely translated as family), an abstract entity which is over

72

T H E OTHER

WORKER

and above the will of any of its members of a given generation. In this sense, the concept of kagyo was closely related to the concept of ie, and not too dissimilar to the concept of han (clan), both developed and enforced among the bushi class. Within each family among both bushi and merchant classes, the reciprocity between the superior and the subordinate was manifestly accepted in terms of the former's on (downward act of giving) and the latter's hoko (upward act of giving, theoretically never capable of reaching the amount of on). T o the extent the reciprocity was fulfilled in the eyes of both parties, the exclusive organizational bond was strengthened beyond the two. From this, it could not have been a difficult jump to keiei-kazoku-shugi (literally, management-familyism) of later days. In the formation of Japan's industrial relations, it should be emphasized that other types of employment, such as those found in traditional local industries and among domestic servants, played only a minor role. Such patterns of employment long persisted despite the influence of modern industrialization and remained seasonal or short-term contract labor with only limited responsibilities between the parties. Tenant labor and unpaid family workers in agriculture, one-man businesses such as peddlers and showmen, and hired-by-the-day heavy laborers at the bottom of the social scale added further varieties to the pattern of Japan's industrial relations. With the exception of tenant labor, which was "liberated" through land reform after World War II, the other types of employment patterns may still be found in contemporary Japan, even though their magnitude and significance continue to decline. In essence, industrialization during the Meiji era created "industrial relations," but incorporated into them the sociocultural heritage of the past. Certain traditions were enforced while others were modified, terminated, or merely preserved. But the newly created working class, factory workers with poor working conditions, began to attract public attention. Whether the cure should come from government, labor, or management became the central concern of the following period. Keiei-Kazoku-Shugi and the Labor Movement (1910-1930) Taiwan was ceded to Japan as the result of the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). After the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), Japan acquired interests in Manchuria, and, in 1910, annexation of Korea took place. Such imperialistic expansion, though impos-

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

73

ing a heavy load of armament upon the nation, encouraged further industrialization of Japan, thus assuring sources of raw materials and expanding markets for finished products. Japan regained tariff autonomy in 1910, when long-condemned commercial treaties of 1858 expired. It was under such circumstances that World War I broke out, with its tremendous impact upon both Japan's economy and industrial relations. Previous to the war, most of Japan's industries were light industries, with the notable exceptions of those related to armament production. World War I brought the second industrial revolution to Japan, resulting in a fantastic growth of heavy machinery and chemical industries. This point may be illustrated by the impressive increase of capital investment made in private industries during this period. T h e total capital accumulated over the forty-year period prior to 1913 amounted to 1,983 million yen. During the six years from 1915 to 1920, the newly added capital amounted to 14,371 million yen, or more than 7 times as much as the amount accumulated over the previous 40 years.7 T h e structural change in the Japanese economy during this period was also reflected in the change in employment structure. Sometime during the 1914-1919 period, for the first time in history, the ratio of traditionally important textile workers went below 50 per cent of all the workers in manufacturing. 8 Also, in 1920, the ratio of women in factory employment first fell below 50 per cent of the total.9 During the 1925-1930 period, those engaged in primary industries declined for the first time to below 50 per cent. 10 T h e ratio of manufacturing workers in firms of 100 or more employees first exceeded the 50-per-cent mark during the 19141919 period. 11 It would be misleading to suggest that various labor problems, which drew so much attention during this period, could be accounted for solely in terms of such structural changes. For example, cases of labor protest, including strikes, are found as early as the 1870s. Labor-union movements, some with American influence, started late in the 1890s and were continued into this period. T h e Russian Revolution, which began in 1917, had a considerable effect upon the socialist movement, which, in turn, was related to the labor unionism of that time. However, changes did occur in patterns of industrial employment which were attributable to further growth of Japan's industrialization. T h e industrial relations problems of this period had a

74

THE OTHER

WORKER

newer outlook and their impact was more significant. A point of importance is the fact that some present-day characteristics of industrial relations have their direct roots in this period. One problem, which was considered primarily a social one, was the "primeval" nature of labor relations characterized by low wages and poor working conditions. A n obvious remedy, from the viewpoint of labor, was to be found in the labor and socialist movements, which will be discussed a little later. From the side of those in power, one solution was offered in the form of the Factory L a w of 1911. Early government attempts to provide protective labor legislation began in 1882, and were accelerated after the SinoJapanese W a r (1894-1895). But resistance of management was strong enough to balk the government move until 1911, when the bill was finally passed, but even then enforcement of the new law was postponed until 1916. A l t h o u g h the law contained many compromises of its original objectives, it represented the first major action of the government to intervene through legislation in the process of determining terms of employment and working conditions, formerly a matter of management's exclusive concern. Another measure to remedy "primeval" labor relations came originally from management, and is known today as keiei-kazokushugi (management-familyism) as an historical analytic concept. In igo8, shortly after the victory over Russia, when labor and socialist movements were gaining considerable support, Hisaichi Soeda, a high-ranking government official, proposed that, in addition to the passage of the Factory Law, application of the "fine heritage of the lord-vassal relationship, not as an evil relic of the past but as a benefit of the feudal time" would be indispensable to the harmonious resolution of interests between capital and labor. 1 2 T h i s viewpoint was not his alone; it also reflected the ideology of the more progressive management group of his day. In substance, the logic of keiei-kazoku-shugi followed the concepts of kagyo (family business) and ie (family) discussed previously. In addition, it emphasized the identity of interests of labor and capital within a single enterprise, subtly implying that such interests must be placed over the interests of out-groups. Using an analogy with the "ideal family system" in Japanese society, which will be discussed later in this chapter, the logic further assumed the unquestionable inviolability of management authority, an implicit denial of the Western theory of labor unionism which presupposes labor's right to challenge management. As applied to industrial relations, Hiroshi Hazama lists five

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

75

characteristics of keiei-kazoku-shugi at the practice level: (1) a hierarchy system based upon ascribed status as a principle of organization, (2) career-commitment pattern of employment, (3) living wages based upon the family as the basic consumption unit, (4) welfare and service programs as security against emergencies, and (5) family ideology as applied to labor-management relations. 13 D u r i n g the 1910s and 1920s, most such practices became deeprooted in large industrial firms, and were an extension of managerial philosophy held among merchant-zaibatsu groups. In practice, this represented a downward extension of preferential privileges, (formerly afforded only to the shoku-in class) to some sectors of factory workers. But why managers decided to resort to, as well as how they could afford, such a move at this particular time must be answered in a broader socioeconomic context. 1 4 One reason was the increased number of male workers in industry, mentioned earlier in this section, whose pressure as permanent breadwinners gained sympathetic public attention in the liberal atmosphere of "Taisho democracy." Secondly, industrial workers were then ready to be moved to social and political action through growing labor and socialist movements. Another reason, possibly a more practical one for management, was the high rate of turnover among skilled workers, whose shortage was being accelerated by the "second industrial revolution." Apprenticeship with guaranteed tenure, welfare facilities, and better-than-prevailing wages were natural answers to these problems. Another condition which encouraged adoption of keieikazoku-shugi was the sharp rise in both productivity and ability to pay among large-scale, as opposed to small, firms. World W a r I brought prosperity to the Japanese economy and helped to overcome management's concern with financial risks involved in extending permanent tenure to a greater portion of employees. A t the same time, the expanding economy encouraged rapid growth of a huge reservoir of subcontractors, which enabled "parent" firms to delegate such risks to subordinate enterprises. Frequently, such organizations were headed by retired employees of parent firms—a phenomenon comparable to the practice of noren-wake among merchants. As a final resort, management could employ rinji-ko (temporary workers), who also grew in number during this period and later attracted wide public attention during the 1930s and 1950s. In essence, the development of keiei-kazoku-shugi meant the extension of privileges, including permanent tenure of employ-

76

T H E OTHER

WORKER

ment which had formerly been reserved for the shoku-in class, to the next lower level of workers, that is, to key male factory workers in large-scale industrial firms.15 As a result, most labor problems concerning all other workers, particularly those in small firms, remained unsolved—a condition which created the phenomenon later referred to as the "dual structure" of the Japanese economy. Keiei-kazoku-shugi could not eliminate the labor and socialist movements which had started during the latter half of the Meiji era. As early as 1897, Rodo Kumiai Kiseikai (Labor Union Promotion Society) was established, and in 1898 Shakai Shugi Kenkyukai (Association for the Study of Socialism), and Shokko Giyukai (Workers' Volunteer Society) were formed. Among the industries organized under the leadership of Rodo Kumiai Kiseikai were steel and iron, railroad, shipbuilding, and printing. But with the enactment of Chian Keisatsu Ho (Public Peace Police Law) of 1900, the early labor-union movement nearly came to a standstill until World War I. World War I gave impetus to both the Japanese economy and the labor movement. Nihon Rodo Sodomei Yuaikai (Japan Friendly Society of Labor Federations), established in 1912 and changed to Nihon Rodo Sodomei in 1921, played an important role in promoting labor union movements. In 1924, there were 469 unions, with a total membership of 228,000, which accounted for 5.5 per cent of employed labor. 16 Through the depressions that followed World War I, and particularly the great depression of 1929, however, management strengthened its position. Coupled with tightened control by management, government suppression eventually led the labor movement into anarchosyndicalism, and labor unionism became dormant again in the late 1930s. Chian Iji Ho (Law for Maintenance of the Public Peace) of 1925 proved to be a most effective tool for suppressing the labor and socialist movements. In summary, further industrialization created newly significant labor problems during this critical period. Government tried to cope with them through protective labor legislation coupled with an oppressive attitude toward unionism. When this latter attitude became more liberal, labor unionism flourished. Management of large firms, on the other hand, resorting to more indigenous concepts, devised a scheme of co-optation known later as keiei-kazoku shugi. Meanwhile, the wars in Manchuria, China, and the Pacific were approaching and were to have a far-reaching effect on industrial relations in Japan.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

Militarism

and Labor Control

77

(1930-1945)

If our subject centered only upon Japan's industrialization, the twenty-year period following the Manchurian Incident (1931) might well be set aside as an abnormal break in the continuous growth of industrialization from the late nineteenth century. From our viewpoint, however, this period deserves special attention, not only because it immediately precedes the present, but because of various important developments that took place in the field of industrial relations. While some developments had no lasting significance, others provided bases without which contemporary industrial relations could not have developed. It was not until 1916, a half century after the Meiji Restoration, that the number of Japanese factory workers reached the first million. T h e second million was added within the next 18 years, culminating in 1934. By 1942, factory workers numbered 4 million. 17 T h e rapid increase in this last period was, of course, a reflection of the nation's all-out war effort. Government intervention in industrial relations also reached an all-time peak, and fullfledged labor administration at the national level became a reality. T h e administrative network created during this period served as the basis for postwar labor administration. T h e tight control exercised over labor during this period, however, imbedded deep distrust of government and authority in general in the minds of the public. It will be recalled that government intervention in industrial relations during the period preceding 1930 took two directions: protection of workers as individuals and suppression of labor organizations. Wartime control, however, took many more forms and reached every sphere of industrial relations. O n the management side, the establishment, merger, and expansion of firms, procurement of capital, and distribution of profits came increasingly under direct control of government. More direct restrictions on employment and working conditions were imposed through laws and ordinances related to hiring and firing, wages and salaries, occupational mobility, and living quarters. A worker's necessities of life in terms of food, clothing, and shelter depended more heavily than ever on the government and his employer because of government rationing at places of work. During this period, the formerly promising labor movement was forced to a complete standstill either by "voluntary" dissolution or by forceful suppression. Every worker was to join the or-

78

T H E OTHER

WORKER

ganization newly created in 1940, known as Dai Nihon Sangyo Hokokukai (Association for Service to the State Through Industry) —commonly known as Sampo. Its policy denounced the threeway split of interests among capital, management, and labor, and its supreme mission was to encourage through co-operation the maximum contribution of each to the achievement of national goals. It is commonly accepted that Sampo's basic unit at each plant provided a model for the organization of plant and enterprise unions in postwar years. It should also be noted that such emphasis on the consensus of interests is not logically very different from the workers' postwar demands for a share in the management of their company as an inherent right. 18 In wage and salary administration, the seniority-based wage system, which had become prevalent among factory workers in large firms during the preceding period, was extended to smaller firms. Individual incentive plans, which previously had found some limited acceptance, were discarded entirely or modified as group plans. Annual wage increases, the living wage based upon actual living costs of workers in various age categories, and various allowances found their way into practice during this same period. In some factories, long-established day-wage systems for production workers were replaced by monthly salary plans which formerly had been considered a privilege reserved for the shoku-in class. Although the rationale advanced for such revisions in wage administration was their function as a countermeasure against growing inflationary trends in the national economy, the underlying theme of national-enterprise socialism cannot be ignored. In every organization, each member was to work at his maximum capacity, striving for organizational goals which, in turn, were supposedly directed to national objectives. In fulfilling his mission as a patriotic worker, each individual was to receive material benefits, monetary or otherwise, not as remuneration for his contribution but as a means to sustain his capacity to work. Since the war was directed against "capitalist" countries, such "capitalist" concepts as contractual labor and individual incentives had to be discarded. 19 T h e war created another important impact on social relations; it raised the relative status of rank-and-file workers, younger ones in particular, through their experiences as both soldiers and producers. T h e status gap between shoku-in and ko-in, which had begun to narrow during the 1910s, continued to shrink further, and "the relative status of shoku-in was lowered." 20 Both battlefield and workplace provided selected factory workers with leadership

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

79

experiences, which later proved invaluable in the postwar labor movement. Furthermore, high labor turnover in the workplace made it difficult to maintain discipline and social order based on ascribed status. Workers lost confidence in conventional authority as they gained confidence in themselves. W i t h accrued hardships at home and in the workplace, their tension increased and accumulated for later expression in postwar unionism. But the last war also had an impact on management philosophy. For example, the collective security concept of ie, as applied to both enterprise and nation, really was shattered as the result of war. T h i s is not to say that strong individualism was born overnight after the war, nor even to suggest that there is no carry-over from wartime to postwar practice of industrial relations. But, at least the face validity of many concepts, which were arbitrarily enforced during the war period, faded away quickly when the war was over. 21 N e w concepts, such as democratization and human rights, gained quick acceptance, but often with only vague understanding of their substance.

CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S Japan's industrialization is still moving forward at high speed. In a modern society, this means society itself is undergoing rapid and widespread changes. A n important analysis maintains that as many as five different stages of development have taken place in postwar industrial relations. 22 Since any change assumes at least partial denial of the past, rebellion against past traditions is quite common, and seems more predominant in Japan than in the United States. Both empirical research and theoretical speculations point out the increasing difficulty for old patterns of industrial relations to persist against the contextual changes in in-plant as well as societal conditions. 23 T h o u g h it must be brief, the remainder of this chapter is devoted to a description of changes in the context within which present-day industrial relations operate in Japan. Economic

Conditions

24

Even before W o r l d W a r II, Japan was by no means a country rich in natural resources. W i t h the loss of T a i w a n and Korea as a result of the war, Japan's self-sufficiency in industrial raw materials

80

THE OTHER WORKER

has further declined. In this respect, Japan is no match for the United States, and is very much closer to industrial nations in western Europe. More than 96 per cent of the crude oil, 81 per cent of the iron ore, 77 per cent of the salt, and all the wool consumed by Japanese industries come from abroad; complete autarky, however, is not necessary for a nation's industrial growth in times of peace. The land area of Japan is 4 per cent of that of the United States, and its population 52 per cent. Available arable land has been in use for many years, and the population per square kilometer of arable land is 1,727 persons, the highest figure in the world—twenty times the comparable figure of 84 in the United States. As a result, income per capita among those engaged in agriculture is only 5 per cent of that in the United States, although land productivity in rice and wheat production is higher in Japan than in the United States.25 The recent GNP growth ratio has been higher in Japan than in the United States—14.4 per cent and 6.0 per cent, respectively, in terms of annual average for the 1951-1960 period.26 Nevertheless, Japanese per capita national income in i960 was only $338 ($922 in 1967), or about 15 per cent (one third in 1967) of that prevailing in the United States. Despite the remarkable achievement of industrial growth, Japan's per capita national income in i960 ranked lower than that of Italy or Venezuela, and only slightly higher than that of Mexico and Spain. From the viewpoint of industrialization, as Kazushi Ohkawa suggested, it may be premature to claim that Japan has reached "the age of high massconsumption," as the term is used by Rostow. It may be more appropriate to say that around i960 Japan was just entering the stage "toward maturity," having left behind the "formative developing stage." 27 Such a transitory stage of industrial development is directly reflected in the pattern of industrial relations. The dual, or "differential," structure of Japan's economy and industry refers to the simultaneous existence of traditional elements together with elements of Western-style capitalism, a situation which may be comparable to the coexistence of developed and developing nations within a single country.28 In concrete terms, it refers to the close coexistence of modern and indigenous industries; to the high ratio of workers in medium- and small-scale firms; to the sharp wage and productivity differentials observed between large and small manufacturing establishments; and to the high percentage of

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN JAPAN

8l

self-employed and family workers in the total labor force. A few of these facts which are most relevant to industrial relations will now be briefly reviewed. T h e first point in question is the status of those who are gainfully employed. 29 In the United States, wage earners comprised more than 80 per cent of the gainfully employed in 1962, whereas the comparative figure in Japan in i960 was only 54 per cent. Selfemployed amount to about 15 per cent in the United States, but were 22 per cent in Japan. T h e percentage of family workers is less than 2 per cent in the United States, but was 24 per cent in Japan. A family worker does not normally receive regular wages; he shares both production and consumption activities with the rest of the household. His status is subject to the head of the household, who in most cases is self-employed; his living standard is dependent upon that of his household, since he has no economic autonomy of his own. Such workers are most commonly found among housewives, older men and women, unmarried women, and sons who are in training in agriculture, fishing, and retail businesses. T h e fact that one-fifth of the working population belongs to this family-worker class may have a significant bearing on the concept of wage labor as perceived by regular wage earners in industry. For example, such concepts as the market value of one's work, the labor contract as a means to reconcile parties of opposing interests, and the right and responsibility of workers to fight for fair wages are no doubt rather foreign to these family workers, except as matters of intellectual curiosity. Consequently, early family training given in such an environment cannot be expected to be conducive to developing the sorts of orientations characteristic of highly mobile, individualistic wage earners. Another aspect deserving comment is the relative difference in status between large and small firms in the United States and Japan. In the United States, workers in firms employing less than 50 comprised only 17 per cent of total manufacturing employment in 1954; the corresponding figure for Japan was 52 per cent.30 Wage and productivity differentials on the basis of size of firm are also greater in Japan than in the United States, although in west European countries the differentials are even less than in the United States. In 1954, added value and wage figures per worker in American manufacturing firms employing from 1 to 9 workers were 70.7 and 63.0, respectively, with corresponding figures for firms with more than 1,000 workers assumed to be 100.0. In Japan, in 1958, such indexes for firms with 4 to 9 workers were only 27.0 for

8a

THE OTHER WORKER

value added and 37.9 for wages. 31 Even though there has been a trend toward narrowing these gaps due to the tight labor market for new school graduates and to the increase in labor productivity among small firms, such a differential structure is still manifest in the Japanese economy. It should be noted that the significance of a concept like "unemployment ratio" lessens under such circumstances. Thus, even at times of business recession, the unemployment ratio may not exceed 1.5 per cent of the total labor force in Japan, clearly the result of using a misleading operational concept. The learned guess of scholars on "disguised" unemployment ranges from 2 to 8 million, 32 even though most of the "disguised" unemployed may not exercise pressure on the labor market as job seekers. However, Japan now is predicting a permanent labor shortage of entry workers for the late 1960s and 1970s. Approximately 70 per cent of the graduates from the nine-year universal compulsory education system and 25 per cent of high school graduates with three additional years' training receive further education, respectively. For those who seek immediate employment after graduation from secondary or high school, the most favored occupation may be work in large firms, possibly followed by employment in local small businesses. Lastly, they may choose unpaid family work, although sometimes this may be a result of expecting to inherit the family occupation. Such preferences more or less reflect relative differences in income opportunity, job security, and work demands. The relative "status" of each type of employer is recognized in society, and large firms can attract many more able candidates than they can accommodate, whereas smaller firms and farming families find it difficult to interest able youths. Larger firms have a wide choice, but smaller employers have to take whoever is left; a competitive selection process takes place. At this time of one's career, the labor market is relatively wide open, and may even extend throughout the nation. But once an employment contract is arranged, it becomes difficult to find employment of higher status for the rest of one's working life. Large-scale firms, staffed with an adequately trained permanent work force, and sometimes with a reservoir of temporary workers at hand, seldom find it necessary to extend invitations to outsiders with previous work records. When World War II was over, there were no labor unions in Japan. Within a year after the end of the war, however, union membership reached 3.7 million. Labor unionism is now a well-

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

83

established social institution with a role in the Japanese economy which should not be underestimated. In i960, labor unions totaled more than 41,000 (about 53,000 in 1965) and more than 7.5 million workers (10 million in 1965), or 34 per cent (36 per cent in 1965) of the employed labor force, belonged to unions. In 1959, approximately 88 per cent of the unions were organized at the level of enterprise or plant, a phenomenon often referred to as "enterprise unionism." 33 Sixty-one per cent of the workers were organized in private firms employing 500 or more in 1963, whereas only 3 per cent of the workers in smaller firms employing 29 or less belonged to unions. 34 Workers with temporary status, found in larger industrial firms, are in most cases excluded from unions set up for permanent workers. T h e economic function of labor unions in private industry may be summarized as primarily the maintenance and enhancement of wages and benefits, and the protection and enforcement of employment security, for permanent workers in relatively large-scale firms—that is, for those who are privileged elites in Japan's industrial society. Labor unions in large enterprises are by no means "company unions," and their economic influence upon management should deserve full recognition. Their achievements play a major role in determining the proper "share" that less privileged workers, such as temporary workers and workers in smaller firms, received for their labors. A brief reference will be made here to what may be termed fukushi-kigyo-shugi (literally, welfare enterprise-ism), which is now characteristic of personnel policies in most large industrial organizations. It emphasizes the responsibility of an employer for the "welfare" of workers, a logic similar to that of keiei-kazoku-shugi. But differences are not difficult to find. T h e present-day concept of welfare enterprise does not exclude labor unions so long as they draw a line against "outsiders." Another difference is that it has adopted a diffused pattern of responsibility similar to the concept of "social responsibility" as advocated in American industry. Somewhat related to the topic in question is the role played by the Mayo school of human relations. Although perhaps to a lesser extent in Japan than in the United States, alienation of workers has posed a problem as mass production has become the rule rather than the exception. In order to meet this problem, and also to "demilitarize" authoritarian managers shortly after the war, the U.S. human relations movement received considerable attention from management. Criticisms are raised, however, that Japanese

84

THE OTHER WORKER

business organizations already are excessively permeated with informal practices, and that what is needed now is an emphasis on formalization of organizational procedures, greater standardization of job content, and more "businesslike" job relations. T h e last point to be discussed in this section is the climate surrounding decision making at top levels of business organizations. T h e decisions of subcontractors, particularly those who maintain exclusive relationships with a single parent firm, are often subject to the will of the latter on such matters as wages, welfare programs, and even workers' union affiliation. This latter question is, of course, also a matter of concern to the labor union in the parent firm. Large firms, furthermore, may be subject to governmental control on decisions related to foreign loans and licensing, and on new major investments. In this regard, it is generally recognized that "economic planning" is better accepted and more widely practiced in Japan than in the United States. Also, attitudes toward business monopoly and oligopoly are quite different. A certain amount of business concentration is often considered necessary and advisable, both for the national economy and from the standpoint of "fair" profits, although "monopolistic capital and American imperialism" continue to be targets of attack from left-wing labor unionists. Social

Conditions

T h e family is one of the most basic social groups in any culture. But it is of particular importance in Japan's industrial relations since it provided the logic underlying keiei-kazoku-shugi, discussed earlier. T h e kazoku-seido (family system) of Japanese society, according to Takeyoshi Kawashima, has two major components—ie and patriarchy. 35 T h e concept of ie, irrespective of the household, refers to "a lineage group which is accompanied by a belief that its identity will be preserved and continued regardless of changes in its membership through death, birth, or marriage." Between the family head and family members "a patriarchal relationship is established in which the family head controls and commands the rest of the members, while the latter only obey the former." It is not realistic to think that kazoku-seido in this sense has a strong direct binding force among families of the contemporary working class. First, such a concept of the family, which was typical of the former bushi class, was not widely held by farmers or urban industrial workers, even before the end of World War II. Second,

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

85

the national policy to reactivate and enforce the system, necessitated at least partly by increasing industrialization and resulting urbanization, ceased at the end of the war. Furthermore, legal protection for kazoku-seido was withdrawn after the war, encouraging further development of conjugal families as the basis for a democratic society. Consequently, direct invocation of kazoku-seido to justify the authority structure in a business organization, or to develop workers' identification with a firm, is no more than an anachronism at present. However, it is difficult to deny any interaction between the mores and values of family groups and contemporary patterns of industrial relations. For example, more privileged workers in large firms still cling to a sense of enterprise-centered exclusiveness, which readily allows them to accept the concept of welfare enterprise previously mentioned. T h e idea of a living wage presupposes some sort of household, if not a family, as a basic unit of comsumption. T h e status of women in industry reflects their role as family members imposed upon them by society. Such specific points will be discussed in more detail in later chapters. However, the family or household in modern Japan, particularly in urban areas, has approximated the model of a conjugal, nonextended family for several decades. In 1920, an average-size household (not ie) of 4.89 persons was reported, and the figure did not change significantly for 35 years. T h e comparable 1955 figure is 4.80 persons per household. In the United States, family size constantly declined from 1790 (5.7 persons) to 1950 (3.5 persons) ,36 T h e stability of the Japanese figures suggests the limited population-absorbing capacity of Japanese farm families which may have necessitated keeping down the family size over a long period. T h e figures also seem to give evidence of the migratory, or dekasegi-gata, theory of the origin of Japan's industrial labor force. Reference may be made here to the concept of oyabun-kobun (parent role-child role) in Japanese society. T h e usefulness of the term oyabun-kobun may be debatable, since its current usage is confined to a few social groups and because of certain negative or even sarcastic semantic connotations. 37 But in many large-scale organizations are found such relationships as a family-type esprit de corps, an ascribed status-centered hierarchy, informal influence cliques, and authoritarian paternalism. 38 Generally speaking, however, assuming a causal relationship from the oyabun-kobun "system" to more complex organizations does not seem warranted. Per-

86

T H E OTHER WORKER

haps, both phenomena should be considered as having developed relatively independently, with only occasional mutual interactions within the same social context. The pattern of social mobility in Japanese industry is probably more highly structured than in the United States, in the sense that there seems to be less leeway for exceptions in Japan. Social restrictions on opportunities for vertical, regional, and inter-firm mobility are also more numerous and complex. Hierarchal, or upwardvertical, mobility of industrial workers is almost confined to movement within the same educational background group in the firm. These would include such groups as those composed of middleschool, high-school, or university graduates, respectively. But, since the same educational attainment places individuals at the same starting line regardless of parent's occupation or lineage, keen competition is characteristic of the educational system in Japan. Regional mobility is almost limited to the time of entering largescale firms, except for executive and staff personnel, who may be shifted around at will by the company. Inter-firm mobility, which will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 6, takes place only occasionally among permanent workers in large-scale enterprises. In Japanese society, opportunity for mobility of a competitive nature, with the possibility of bringing about drastic changes in one's status, is primarily restricted to childhood and adolescence for those who enter industry. Once a predetermined criterion for achievement is passed, mostly educational in nature, one's competition is confined to that among peers belonging to the same status group in the organization. Unlike the United States, Japan has no racial problems of practical significance in industrial relations. An issue which has much more significance than race is social class. Since the word "class" is interpreted quite differently by Marxist and non-Marxist social scientists, both of whom enjoy considerable public support in Japan, it has created incompatible methodological problems in dealing with the phenomenon. 39 Referring to a recent study which follows the non-Marxist approach to social stratification, when a representative sample of all blue-collar workers in large-scale industries was surveyed, threequarters of the sample felt they belonged to either upper-middle or lower-middle class in terms of living standards. T h e majority of the rest identified with upper-lower class, while only a very few identified themselves with either upper class or lower-lower class. Bluecollars in large industries were found to be quite similar in their

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

87

income and personal habits to their counterparts in white-collar occupations. 40 In i960, women workers comprised approximately 7 million, or 30 per cent, of the total wage earners (in 1965, 9.2 million and 32 per cent respectively). 41 In private industries, their status seldom rises above the level of unskilled or semiskilled factory worker (middle-school graduates), or lower clerical staff (high-school graduates) . Women in professional and managerial positions are very limited in number, particularly in large-scale firms. Also, there is an implicit understanding in private large-scale firms that women's tenure should be limited to the time before marriage, or at longest, until the birth of the first child. A significant social difference between the United States and Japan is the heavy influence that Japanese youth exerts upon the employment structure. In 1961, 46 per cent, or nearly half, of all manufacturing workers were less than 24 years old. T h e comparable U.S. figure was only 15 per cent.42 This employment pattern, together with other conditions, has created the phenomenon of "generation gaps" in industry, one of the serious problems in present-day industrial relations. Postwar education has denounced militarism and ultranationalism, and has emphasized democracy and freedom of individuals. Such a shift in educational policy has had a considerable general impact upon society. Even in industry, Training-Within-Industry (TWI) programs were employed to promote "democratization" in the workplace. It should be noted, however, that the educational reform, although patterned after the U.S. model, has not necessarily resulted in Americanization. For example, freedom of speech, when taught as a concept, may encourage equally well the advocacy of American democracy or Marxist teachings. A t least on the surface, Japan seems to be a country where conflicting ideologies flourish more than in the United States. But insisting that Japan is a nation of split ideologies undoubtedly goes too far. T h e Japanese accept new elements and conflicting values freely, but still the society has maintained historical continuity and social integrity. Political

Conditions

One obvious difference between the United States and Japan is the stronger tie between government and industry that has characterized the latter's industrialization since its beginning. T h e role of government is not necessarily considered to be restrictive as it applies to private industry; in fact, it may even be considered sup-

88

T H E OTHER

WORKER

portive in many cases. In prewar days, the government role in industrial relations may have been meant to be neutral and impartial, but its decisions tended to result in preserving the authority of management over workers' rights. The most important postwar change of a political nature in industrial relations was legislation favoring the development of labor unionism passed during the early period of the American Occupation. All conflicting laws and ordinances were abolished on the basis of directives issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Powers (SCAP). The Diet acted quickly on newly proposed bills which resembled in many respects the labor legislation of the 1930s in the United States. The early SCAP effort was directed toward development of the working class as the future nucleus of democratic Japan. Consequently, utmost support and encouragement were given to the development of labor unionism. The Labor Union Law was passed by the Diet in 1945, and the Labor Relations Adjustment Law in 1946. The Labor Union Law protects the workers' right to form unions of their choice and to bargain collectively with employers. It also guarantees labor's right to strike. The Labor Relations Adjustment Law specifies the procedures for peaceful settlement of labor disputes. These laws, together with the Labor Standards Law of 1947, are often referred to as rodo-sampo (the three labor laws). Since Japanese society resumed a process of evolution following the armistice in the Korean War, there have been relatively few changes in labor legislation as it applies to workers in large-scale private industries. Although some legislation dates back to prewar days, the present body of laws relevant to industrial relations covers, in addition to those mentioned above, minimum wage, employment stabilization, occupational training, social insurance (health, old age and survivors, accident compensation, and unemployment), and labor welfare (labor union bank, retirement funds for small businesses, and housing loans). Separate laws are often provided for such occupational groups as national and local government workers, employees of national corporations, seamen, and workers hired by the day. The execution of most of these laws rests with the Ministry of Labor, which has offices throughout the country. It is not simple to evaluate the relative roles in the United States and Japan of government in industrial relations in private industries. One general impression is that the government role is much more highly centralized in Japan. However, national legal

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN J A P A N

89

standards may be of little significance to large-scale industries which develop their own patterns beyond the minimum requirements of the law. In small businesses, on the other hand, the law's minimum requirements may actually be too stringent to be enforced effectively by government agencies. In the field of labor relations, central and local labor commissions have played an important role in shaping the pattern of industrial relations through mediation and conciliation. Recently, wage arbitration for public corporations has shown the tendency to set up a model for wage increases in private industry through "spring offensives." Such direct and indirect influence of government agencies may continue and even grow in the future. In an earlier section dealing with economic conditions, the rapid growth of labor unionism in the postwar period was reviewed briefly. Attention is now turned to the political implications of Japan's labor unionism, with its i960 membership of 7.5 million (10 million in 1965). The upper structures of enterprise unions, which constitute the basic pattern of organization in most private industries, include regional, industrial, and national organizations. Among these, the most important national organizations are Sohyo, Domei, and Shinsambetsu. Nihon Rodokumiai Sohyogikai (Sohyo; General Council of Trade Unions of Japan) is the largest of all the national organizations. In i960, about 50 per cent (42 per cent in 1965) of all organized workers were affiliated with Sohyo, although approximately two-thirds of them were government workers. The role government plays in their wage determination is a basic reason for Sohyo's "political" orientation. Also, an important fact is that Sohyo is closely related to the Socialist Party, the largest opposition party in the nation. Although active politically, Sohyo is nonetheless a powerful co-ordinator of wage negotiations in private industries, a fact well evidenced by its leading role in annual "spring offensives." The second largest national organization, Domei (Japanese Confederation of Labor), draws its membership primarily from private industries. Even though it accounts for only 16 per cent of organized labor, it is an important organization which is considered oriented primarily toward business unionism. On the other hand, Domei's tie with the Democratic-Socialist Party is an unequivocal fact. In general, labor unions, through affiliation with upper organizations, maintain closer relationships with political parties in Japan than in the United States. The Liberal-Democratic Party has continued to hold power

go

T H E OTHER

WORKER

since the end of the war, with the exception of one short period. T h e ties between the party and financial circles, and between government and management groups are very strong. Particularly important from the industrial relations viewpoint are Nihon Keieisha Dantai Remmei (Nikkeiren, Japan Federation of Employers' Associations) and industry-wide management associations. T h e latter's significance will increase as labor unions intensify their proclaimed effort toward industry-wide collective bargaining. T h e apparent conflicts in political convictions between management and labor, and between the Liberal-Democratic Party and the Socialist Party, are often colored with heated arguments over capitalism versus socialism, or affiliation with the United States, the Soviet Union, or Continental China. Such ideological conflicts, however, do not seem to have immediate effects upon industrial relations at the plant level. Production workers in large-scale firms are particularly apathetic as to what any political party can do for them. 43 SUMMARY Japan entered the industrialization process toward the end of the nineteenth century, approximately a half century later than the United States. T h e transformation was undertaken by the highly centralized government, but followed the general pattern of the capitalistic model. Pre-existing socioeconomic factors, such as agricultural productivity, organizational concepts of the bushi class, and profit orientation of merchant families, contributed to the diversity of early patterns of industrial relations. Following a brief introductory period, exploitative, inferior working conditions came to prevail in the private sector of Japanese industry. T h e workers' answer to these problems was labor unionism and the socialist movement. T h e government's answer was a dual strategy of protection and suppression. Management of large-scale industries resorted to preferential treatment of the bulk of their production workers. Temporary workers and workers in smaller industries were excluded from these benefits, and the "dual structure" of the Japanese economy gradually emerged. During the time of the wars in China and the Pacific, labor unionism was completely suppressed, and the harmony of interests among labor, management, and capital was emphasized to promote a national-socialistic viewpoint. Nevertheless, deteriorating work-

I N D U S T R I A L R E L A T I O N S IN J A P A N

t)l

ing conditions and unhappy war experiences created dissatisfaction among workers and generated energy for the postwar labor movement. Japan's industrialization has now reached a stage of relative maturity. Industrial production has ranked her among leading industrial nations of the world. Yet the dual structure is still salient in her economy, family workers are not uncommon, and wage gaps exist particularly for older workers between large- and small-scale industries. Postwar labor unions have successfully organized one-third of all wage earners. Most workers in large, private industries belong to enterprise-based labor unions, but workers in small firms are seldom protected by unionism. "Welfare enterprise" concepts characterize the personnel policies of large industrial concerns. It should be noted that the sample for this study comes from this sector of industrial workers. Turning to the social aspects of contemporary Japan, we find remnants of the past blended with the new, both of which are equally relevant to an understanding of industrial relations. T h e traditional family system is clearly on its way out, but its imprint on industrial relations cannot be ignored. Labor mobility still takes place according to a predetermined pattern, but a manpower shortage is exerting increasing pressure. A prevailing social problem created by present-day industrialization is the complex generation gap found in industry. Labor legislation has been firmly established in Japan. Workers, through their unions and political parties, have achieved a strong voice in the Diet. The government, on the other hand, is on intimate terms with industry. T o further confuse the picture, socialism enjoys strong support among intellectuals as the most appropriate future course for the nation to follow. Undoubtedly, J a p a n is undergoing a multitude of changes at a more rapid pace than is the United States. Some changes are socioeconomic in nature, while others represent fundamental changes in knowledge or thought. Both types of changes are very real in contemporary Japan, and contribute to the difficulty of forecasting with precision the future course of the nation. T h e present chapter is intended to cast some light on the past and present contexts of Japan's industrial relations. With this background, we are hopeful that the questionnaire data, together with other material presented in Part II may be more meaningful.

Chapter

5

MOTIVATION TO WORK

Selection of motivation as the first of the seven basic industrial relations functions to be discussed was a deliberate choice, and reflects a conviction that motivation is both the foundation and the ultimate manifestation of a successful industrial relations system. Stimulation, direction, and control of man's will to work is of vital importance in the progress of nations, industries, and firms. Its critical role in the stability of a social system is emphasized by an eminent industrial psychologist: "Upon work depend all other pursuits of man. Hence, the permanence of a social system—of a civilization—is determined by its ability to maintain and direct to its desired ends the will-to-work." 1 W O R K E R MOTIVATION: A CONCEPT In its broadest sense, motivation is concerned with the "why" of human behavior. Development of this broad concept is found primarily in the literature of psychology.2 In this volume, however, a much more limited concept must be used. In the first place, our scope is limited to the industrial world. Furthermore, we shall not attempt a historical treatment of the motivation concept. Neither shall we take part in the popular debate concerning the relative importance of particular motives in the individual's hierarchy of needs, since results seem misleading and of limited value. I n an industrial setting, a worker's motivation to work simply means the degree of his willingness to contribute to the goal achievement of his organization. T o varying degrees, workers accept and strive for organizational goals in their capacity as members of the productive institution. As A. H. Maslow states, goals are the "centering principle in motivation theory." 3 Motivation to work becomes high or "good" when workers perceive of organizational goals as being consistent with and contributory to their own need satisfaction. I n such cases, acceptance

96

T H E OTHER

WORKER

of organizational goals as objectives of their own behavior is spontaneous and not likely to be a source of tension on the part of workers. It is true that in certain cases, workers' acceptance of organizational goals can, at least in the short run, be forced even when such goals do not lead to their own need satisfaction. T h i s may take place when no alternatives are available to the worker, and when there are severe penalties for nonco-operation in striving for organizational goals. T h e two different approaches to worker motivation, often referred to as the "carrot" and the "stick" approaches, pose an intriguing dichotomy of eternal controversy. Because our study is confined to J a p a n and the United States, each with a relatively free economy, our concern is, of course, primarily with the former approach. It is not easy to define the organizational goals of industrial institutions which are universally applicable irrespective of cultural background and economic system. It seems best to restrict our use of the term "organizational goals" to simply the idea of worker responses sought by management. These, after all, constitute the behavior pattern sought by management and, therefore, constitute the relevant goals which must be synthesized by workers with their own individual needs. For example, Frederick Harbison and Charles A. Myers present a useful guide in stating that "management desires three responses from workers." These are: (1) subordination, (2) loyalty, and (3) productivity. Subordination refers to the willingness of workers to take orders and to recognize the need for certain management prerogatives, including that of maintaining discipline. Loyalty, in the sense used by Harbison and Myers, refers to "an expression of positive identification with the enterprise and the more or less voluntary acceptance of managerial authority." 4 Productivity refers simply to the rather obvious requirement that workers work and produce efficiently. On the other hand, most readers will be familiar with the needs of individuals as discussed by psychologists. Maslow presents in his classic discussion of motivation what he calls the hierarchy of basic needs: the physiological needs, the safety needs, the love needs, the esteem needs, and the need for self-actualization. It seems sufficient for our purposes to accept this hierarchy of individual needs as representative of the personal goals sought by most workers. A large number of studies have attempted to identify factors

M O T I V A T I O N T O WORK

97

attributable to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, particularly in the United States, in an effort to answer the management question of how to motivate workers to work. A list of such job factors enumerated by Dr. Frederick Herzberg and others covers 134 items classified under ten headings: intrinsic aspects of job, supervision, working conditions, wages, opportunity for advancement, security, company and management, social aspects of job, communication, and benefits. 5 In no culture, however, has the answer to the question of how workers are best induced to work yet been found. Each generation in each culture strives to find the best answer within the given context of its time. Experiments cover everything from the economic and political system to individual incentive schemes, with available theories and practices at any given time representing primarily revisions and elaborations of earlier thought and study. In this chapter and the rest of the volume, we shall make constant references to the organization and the individual as a useful dichotomy in our analysis of worker-management relations. Admittedly, the acceptance of this dichotomy as a central theme reflects in itself certain cultural values, and the significance of such conceptualization may vary from one culture to another. In accepting this dichotomy, we are implicitly assuming that organizations and individuals occupy positions of equal significance in our analysis, and that contrast of the two poses an important area of exploration in industrial relations. Such an assumption, however, may be questioned in certain other cultures. For example, an individual may be defined in a totalitarian culture simply as part of the whole, which may be a group or an organization, and the whole may claim inviolability over individuals w h o are considered to be merely its parts. In such a situation, presentation of the individual-organization dichotomy may be itself a violation of a predominant cultural value, because the dichotomy does not recognize the unilateral priority of the organization over the individual. O n the other hand, the reverse may be true in a strongly individualistic society, where an individual may be more highly valued than a collective body of individuals. In time of peace, neither of these extreme cases is likely to present a realistic picture of any society. Each culture seems to strike a compromise—some inclined toward one end and some toward the o t h e r — i n achieving the balance which seems most appropriate to its needs. It would seem, therefore, that the individual-

g8

T H E OTHER

WORKER

organization dichotomy represents a workable concept i n the analysis of present-day industrial relations.

WORKER MOTIVATION: UNITED STATES AND

JAPAN

T h e industrialization process has created physical facilities for p r o d u c t i o n w h i c h are roughly similar t h r o u g h o u t the industrial world. B u t w i t h i n each society, systems of industrial relations have emerged which, in comparison, are quite unique. T h e historical sequence of events, as well as present environment, affect the way individuals are organized so that they may make their m a x i m u m contribution to the goals of productive institutions. In this section, a brief historical perspective w i l l be provided concerning the ways in w h i c h the p r o b l e m of motivation to work has been approached in the U n i t e d States and Japan, respectively. United, States T h e most persistent a n d pervasive characteristics of the U.S. approach to motivation could be summed u p until very recent years in the single w o r d w h i c h itself describes the traditionally central value in A m e r i c a n culture: individualism. W h e t h e r described as negative or positive, exploitative or supportive, diabolical or humane, efforts to stimulate the U.S. worker's w i l l to w o r k — e x c e p t in times of w a r w h e n nationalism a n d patriotism supersede all other m o t i v e s — h a v e typically been oriented toward the i n d i v i d u a l rather than the group. A s mentioned in C h a p t e r 3, the Protestant ethic raised to ethereal heights the wisdom and goodness of hard work, material rewards, and "success" for every individual. A l s o p o i n t e d out earlier was the impact of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t in political thought, w i t h its stress u p o n equality a n d individual freedom and its inherent hostility to any f o r m of centralized control. R o b e r t D u b i n describes the early emergence of A m e r i c a n individualism as a product of rebellion "against the tyranny of an allembracing State or State-Church." T h e resulting pluralistic society, he points out, "was characterized by three f u n d a m e n t a l freedoms for the individual: freedom for privacy, freedom of association, a n d freedom for innovation in social behavior." 6 T h i s approach to motivation through the individual was, of course, very compatible w i t h the rugged frontier philosophy characterizing early periods of economic g r o w t h both prior to the Civil W a r and d u r i n g the "explosion-of-industry" period w h i c h fol-

MOTIVATION T O WORK

99

lowed. But from about 1910 to 1950, during a period which we described in Chapter 3 as being one of rationalization and consolidation, one might have expected less adherence to strictly individual approaches to motivation and a growing awareness of group potential. Such a shift did not materialize significantly until after 1950, and we believe at least two reasons may be cited. First, scientific management etched deeply the controlling nature of jobs per se. T h a t is, underlying all thinking concerning U.S. management problems was the persistent assumption that technology determines work tasks, which, in turn, must provide the criteria for the selection and training of people. A one-to-one concept was fostered between man and job which continually emphasized an individualistic orientation. Furthermore, the severe economic depression of the 1930s created a widespread labor surplus. Management was allowed, therefore, the continued luxury of a largely individualistic approach to recognition, compensation, and other aspects of the motivation problem. Other factors could be mentioned which together delayed the inevitable shift to exploration of group potential and group dynamics which is demanded by an increasingly complex industrial structure. A f t e r 1950, however, basic structural and situational changes in American industrial life created irrepressible forces not toward destruction of, but toward reinterpretation of, individualism within a vastly altered context. A significant aspect of this reinterpretation may be seen in the increased interest and research focused upon the role of groups—both internal and external—in motivation to work. For example, it was during the 1950s that America first achieved a white-collar society, with its threat of conformity and indifference. T h e insidious threat of size and complexity of organization to the nineteenth-century concept of individualism is obvious, and few who have read W . F. Whyte's Organization Man care to deny it. But, as America earnestly seeks a reinterpretation of individualism which will be more compatible with a society in which social (and personal) welfare clearly demands a multitude of complicated and extensive group activities, the so-called threat begins to emerge as a tempting challenge. Other examples could be cited, not the least of which is the substantial body of human relations research dealing with work groups. Such trends seem to signal a more constructive and better balanced approach to motivation in American industry.

100

THE OTHER WORKER

Japan

In present-day Japan, there are many diverse opinions regarding motivation to work which are held by individuals of differing ages and experience. Although some such variety may be expected in all cultures, World War II and postwar reforms had an impact in Japan which makes it very difficult to draw consistent generalizations. During the militarism that followed a period of individualism and liberalism from 1910 to 1930, a set of nationalistic philosophies gradually evolved by which individuals were given a minor role in organized society. During this nationalistic period, there was a clear priority of public interest over private or personal interest. Selfish aims were only to be achieved through complete submission to the goals and interest of the nation. T h e "central public interest" at that time referred to the interest of the Imperial Family which, in turn, was theoretically concerned only with the welfare and interest of the people. In a wartime textbook on personnel management, Shinhachiro Hirosaki states: "According to the Imperial Way, the significance of the priority of public interest is that realization of personal interest is assured of its own accord through its being part of the public interest." 7 Clearly, this logic per se cannot claim much contemporary significance in Japanese postwar industrial relations. Any attempt today to place the interest of the Imperial Family and the nation over that of individuals would be simply labeled feudalistic and reactionary. Since the end of World War II, there have been a number of developments in every sphere of society to denounce totalitarianism and encourage individualistic values. T h e importance of multiplicity of authority has also become increasingly recognized. Such a complete change within a single generation is clearly evidenced by the existence of various generation gaps among Japanese workers to which reference is made frequently in this volume. But we would be naive to assume that the periods before and after World War II were completely discrete and had no continuity. We shall attempt to identify the main streams of Japanese thought concerning motivation to work, at the same time paying due regard to various crosscurrents which seem to be in operation. For comparison between the United States and Japan, the most basic factor to be mentioned is the strong collective orientation in the rationale underlying motivation in Japanese industry.

MOTIVATION TO WORK

101

Even though there are differences in conceptualization and emphasis, individuals seem to occupy a role that is secondary to organizations and groups in Japan. It is true that the wartime emphasis on unity of all individuals, groups, and organizations under the Imperial Family and the nation is a thing of the past. Likewise, the unconditional priority of public interest as opposed to individual or private interest is n o longer accepted. Nevertheless, a relatively strong collective orientation remains in Japan as compared with the United States. Postwar discussions accept the concept of "society" (shakai) as a key term to describe the most extensive range of " p u b l i c " interest group within the nation. T h e word "shakai" has a distinctly more people-centered, and therefore more democratic, connotation than old terms, such as the "nation" (kokka) or the "Imperial Family" (koshitsu). Furthermore, it implies the diversity of interest groups and the multiplicity of authority structures. It was within this context that some progressive managers readily accepted the concept of social responsibility of management which had been developed in the United States. 8 By its adoption, some managements undoubtedly hoped to mitigate the charge of profit making as the sole concern of business. Most postwar written policies and business creeds also reflected acceptance of the concept of "society." A n example is the policy slogan developed by the T o r a y Corporation, which states: " T h e T o r a y serves society. Better goods at lower prices for the customer; stable and secure life for the employee; and fair dividends for the shareholder." It is a commonly held opinion that this policy represents a highly progressive attitude, which might well be adopted by other organizations. Reference has been made to the wartime exclusive priority of public as opposed to private interests, and of public obligation to look after the welfare of individuals. According to the logic prevailing at that time, when an individual is confronted with the choice between his own or the public interest, he must choose the latter. But when he does so, those entrusted with the public interest must see to it that the individual's essential self-interests are also satisfied. However, experience during the war was that an act of self-sacrifice for the sake of public interest often was not rewarded at all, and sometimes even became the target of cynical ridicule. It was pointed out in Chapter 4 that preferential protectionism of workers by management gradually lost its significance dur-

102

T H E OTHER WORKER

ing the war because of increased government wage control. When the war was over, many companies could not afford to carry the huge wartime labor force, and employment was curtailed drastically in many firms. As the national economy recovered, however, many large companies again found themselves able to afford preferential benefits for at least their regular workers. In spite of the fact that there was a labor union in each of the larger concerns, management started again to encourage the identity of company and worker interests. Giving preferential protection to some groups means denying similar protection and benefits to other groups. Within the context just described, a hierarchal order again emerged among firms in the same industry according to wages and benefits received by workers. Also, within each firm, workers were classified into categories which theoretically represented their degree of contribution to the firm and which, therefore, were recognized by wage and benefit differentials. Even though the union has changed the significance of the role played by management in preferential protectionism, this hierarchy of wages and benefits exists within each firm as well as among different firms in Japan. Thus far, we have discussed how public interest, as contrasted with individual interest, has been interpreted differently in recent decades. In addition, we have reviewed the way in which the identification of organizational goals and individual needs has been attempted, with varying degrees of success. As a final point, we shall discuss the role that an individual is perceived to play in an organization. The traditional assumption of an individual's role in an organization is that each must contribute his maximum to the organizational goal. N o matter what his special abilities or particular assignment may be, he is expected to do his best in whatever position he happens to be at a given time. Stated another way, there is no impersonal, objective standard of performance. Instead, each individual's maximum capacity provides the standard against which he will be evaluated on the job. This theory is obviously consistent with the practice of longterm employment commonly found among regular workers in Japanese industry. Where it is not possible to "standardize" workers in terms of their skills and performance levels through frequent accession and discharge or by training, and where it is not possible to replace old timers by younger ones to suit new methods or ma-

MOTIVATION TO WORK

103

chinery, the theory provides a sensible guide whereby the maximum output may be expected from all available workers. A Sony Corporation top executive explains this concept of organization by using a unique illustration, although his remark is meant primarily for staff research workers rather than production workers. He explains that a Western concept of organization is similar to the process of building a wall with concrete blocks of a standard size. His organization, however, is similar to a wall which may be made of stones of different sizes. Each stone, small or large, contributes to the wall as much as its capacity allows. Pointing out that since layoff is not practical in Japanese industry, he concludes that this system is better than forcing individuals into predetermined positions which may be too big or too small for them. 9 Such an organizational practice has persisted for staff and supervisory workers in Japan. However, many production jobs have gone through considerable changes where technological impact has been great. Job instructions have become standardized, and tasks are specified clearly for each position on mass production lines. Workers must often be quite isolated, with the result that they can no longer help each other. In the questions that follow, we shall expect to see both the mainstream and such crosscurrents at work in Japanese factories. DIFFERING PATTERNS OF WORKER MOTIVATION With the background of the preceding sections in mind, we shall now explore the pattern of motivation to work in each of the two countries studied. In this section, we are concerned with five areas of worker perception, each dealing with a specific and relevant topic in motivation. First, we shall study the sorts of responsibilities and opportunities from which workers derive motivational strength or pressure in each country. More specifically, how do workers perceive the rationale for delivering their maximum contribution of skill, care, and effort toward organizational goals? Second, a question will be asked as to how the worker perceives of his relationship with his company. Does he consider the company merely a place to work? Or does he accept it as being something of personal importance to him? Third, an area worthy of study is the extent to which workers conceive company rules to be consistent with their own desired

104

T H E OTHER WORKER

patterns of behavior. T o what extent are organizational norms internalized by workers? Fourth, to what degree do workers expect to display diligence on the job? Is it accepted as part of their responsibility? Or do they object, with the backing of their unions, to working as hard as management would like them to work? Finally, we shall be concerned with the question of workers' acceptance of technological change. T o what extent do workers perceive such changes as being consistent with, or in conflict with, their own needs? Attention is now turned to the questions designed for the questionnaire study in the United States and Japan. T h e responses of participants will be examined as well as the contexts within which the responses must be interpreted if they are to be realistically understood. 10 Motivational Sources (Table 1) T h e first question seeks to determine whether an individual's will to work depends primarily upon his own self-interest or upon his interests and relationships vis à vis others. Expressed in another way, if we are to understand the sources from which individuals derive motivation we must know whether these are largely ego-centered or group-centered, internal or external, in nature. It should be noted that this question asks respondents to select the reason which, in their opinion, best describes why workers in general are willing to work hard in their respective countries. Because of the nature of this basic motivational question, we deliberately chose this generalized, descriptive approach. Based upon our general discussion of the background of the two countries, we would expect that items 1 and 2 might be more acceptable in a society such as J a p a n where a collective orientation has been stronger despite recent offsetting developments. On the other hand, we would expect that items 3 and 4 would be more acceptable in a traditionally individualistic society such as the United States. T h e results from respondents in the two countries generally supported this difference concerning the raison d'être of motivation to work. We find, for example, far greater support among Japanese respondents for item 1, with its reflection of a sense of responsibility to largely out-company groupings of "family, friends, and society." At the other extreme, we find U.S. participants describing workers as responding in far greater numbers to the stim-

M O T I V A T I O N T O WORK

105

ulus of simple economic motivation—that is, the "economic man" concept. Yet, the caution expressed earlier concerning the changing nature of individualism in the United States clearly was warranted. Traditional individualistic orientation toward work, which has been a central cultural value since the nation's founding, has been subjected to increasing social pressures during recent years. This point is well summarized by Joseph P. Fitzpatrick: "Certain fundamental values, such as individualism and freedom, were the driving force behind the economic developments of the United States. But the vigorous pursuit of those values has gradually led to the creation of a system which makes the perpetuation of those values difficult if not impossible." 1 1 T h e fact that a majority of U.S. participants selected item 2 vividly demonstrates their awareness of the impact of events, and the pressure of social and cultural changes, which have forced a new expression of traditional individualism. T h a t is, individualism and freedom, in an industrial society of highly complex organizations and interdependent work groups must be, and is being, reinterpreted in the direction of responsible group effort rather than of "going it alone." Item 3 had little appeal to respondents in the United States. It will be recalled from the discussion of sample design in Chapter 2 that all participating American firms are unionized. Explicitly in their labor contracts or implicitly in the practices of the firm, seniority is apt to be an important consideration in determining promotions. 12 Even though strict reliance upon seniority is almost always qualified by the necessity for alternative candidates to be equal in ability and physical condition, general recognition of the seniority principle obviously makes item 3 less realistic and thus less compelling to respondents. While participants in both countries described their country's workers as demonstrating a high degree of responsibility toward others, we find sharp differences in the response pattern for items 1 and 2. A far greater proportion of Japanese workers were thought to accept responsibility toward out-company groups as indicated in the first item. American participants, on the other hand, indicated their belief that U.S. workers feel a sense of responsibility toward "closer," more tangible in-company groups. 13 T h e fair-sized concentration of Japanese workers on item 1 is consistent with the general background discussed earlier. It is not possible, of course, to determine merely from the response itself

Table

1

M O T I V A T I O N A L SOURCES (Questionnaire Item No. 1)

I believe workers are willing to work hard on their jobs because:

All Respondents (Per Cent)

Subgroups : Sex and Age (Per Cent)

U.S. Japan

U.S.

Japan

M

F

Y

0

M

F

Y

0

1.

they want to live up to the expectations of their family, friends, and society;

10

41

16

4

14

18

41

41

39

43

2.

they feel it is their responsibility to the company and to co-workers to do whatever work is assigned to them;

61

37

57

65

58

56

39

36

42

36

3.

the harder they work, the more likely they are to be promoted over others to positions of greater responsibility;

9

11

12

5

14

11

7

14

5

9

4.

the harder they work, the more money they expect to earn.

20

11

15

26

14

15

13

9

14

12

X2

280.710

70. 019

1.936

15. 134

4.728

P

4")

3.

a place for me to work with management, during work hours, to accomplish mutual goals;

54

26

52

55

49

55

27

?•>

?0

34

4.

strictly a place to work and entirely separate from my personal life.

23

8

19

25

19

20

8

7

11

S

X2

377.433

12. 369

3.423

10.276

30..573

P

0.01 ©»SU

-täföff&i'tz^r:, ÂtttLx

() () ()

©#— § ¿ ¿ í o LTH-gJífc-CT. écífci L t W I & Á T t , «ÉiiÂ^aij-cn-a-tôïïfc'i^-a-So

( )

£it¿

( ) ( )

i£î*©£Ate*fLT, fSJíiJO^ÉÍfci^^éft-. £ ¿ t t , ¡tifëtet/Kifêtei, ^ t e S g ^ - t í - á ^ é

ti i: 5

¿ 5 K-j-^tóáo

LVftEëAfC.

•Chitad o

Ste^t/e»

7. i í > ¿ : L t f e , ¿' 5 4IEL
i t ^ t ì f l c - ï r i i f c U : « . * h iM *te£¡fffiiftteál;iinl,&^o

-írOí ¿ t t L&i^o

-eoíS^fCfi. é í f c © Ä i Ü x S - t - S t

GG6 8.

THE OTHER WORKER «.AOJMFCFC^-CSFCA*

( )

&A©iCiic©-hi* -> X & ¡t> £ .

SS-GI^TC,

)»©II>©AO-C,

9.

fc W I L I T .

( )

« T T I L T T I ,

-TOAII,

TTT,

-MI?SI-O-CI>»< O

mm-t-zO ( )

-IROAZK

FS^KID&NFC^OL'TBTTS I

( ) XM

I),

t'Mts.&fcli,

z

fctftftSttfcl^rtMio

(

)

M m i c b f c «

17.

5

^

5g!j ¿ ¡ f t f ) ,

5

t S i .

L/-C,

{>£?&©£ ? l / f r ^ A f t ^ i :

0

APPENDIX B is.

399

stcittmméXiSitiïce* m * ^ *

¿

o

( )

< ¿ è . T I E S i t -í-S o

( ;

#

T

—o©isEiM'£tK

)

¡e

^ ¿

OT

«©ÀtA&fc&^/bo

èia] C t t S o

è 1 — o ö B E f c f F o f c í> > • b ^ ^ ^ í i ,

( )

( -

Ififllä 5


L í w ' ^ f i — À ¿ è fa] i; ¿ - f â o

( )

¡bfcfcicMSffllisi-^ifôjftèiâ]

a t S »

bá>ur«J

tbT0ÂffilUfc«îïl>o

( )

è t t i * , £HiJ*H»J*àâS©l;tÉâiaî*iJt>*>

( )

áítO&ai^flJlilitíi, SSRfc-f S

( )

â a ^ .

o . Î b - C f é -5b>, - e è 5 A í t í & t t * 0 ,

M

tfc

{.©¡cfì. üflu^mfluirätòsstì^t-,

fl>ii8¿ l / T t a t b ( )

6©icli,

¿©i±,

¡a«©

< fcl^o

éttcgmo-fsmiitu,

X'b

htiw&vfk

4

(

? t>.

» « t i c M t s â t t

© í f e ^ f c ' v í i Ofcl^o

20.



A

i

.

b-Clái- 5 - T 5 ©

¿ i — S l ' í - f A » . .

( ) ( )

#»üS'&©3gí!.&##gffiiíM^-cfcôao « ï i c f c f t ÜT&iStiZ

o

400

THE OTHER WORKER

21.

fcS^igHAffl^o-C^fctfciffai.
®tfcii«:3-(t-cJioi::»3
i i ^ t t t c n

i-OAAi, •e

u

tzo

^itli, fca-j-e/i,-*-^!

(

ft

1 / " C l i , • £*

-

{

fcfc«>tc.

0

^¿fc'o

Z A s t e f i -f ^ ¡ D A i i - f l S

(«»©ifcKft* r c ® S S J 3 *>«>«¡!>>£„

ìfiftgsST-liiLtffcA.fc^c.fcfr©*£¡b>&¿,B & H S

( )

fcîlOÂlEfi.

*

L/iifto

mS^icKMi-io fëMMic.

26. f

401

fcätxcfi,

¿-©^O^A*

éífc¿bT-

¿o¿,lt>it¿>.

( )félîÊ^ÏFlffi^ifciSifiÎTfcî ^

írfflíÉmiáSíe«: b-Cfe < o

( )

ifc« Uft: D 3 tf

î) -i"» c. ¿ ft » -c-à Sä»

è"



t-fo( )flÉKsSfflfFfi^JtRarÍTÍcl^êîtxp Ç> t* 1 r#(ffi3 nxi>S

27. i (

êtt©ftÂ>-e. «-it -

*T )

C)

ft »

1

t'Atte* )

fl-fê-

n^-m^-r

S)

s

ÜiÄ^fiäfeficM-täW^ico

©*)> t ^ t ,&"its>o

à aí>T*U>T, föjS©sS5

a©3sn

$> t,t>>C#>. fio à *) UteXac^-e^ii-S: è tóTfcè , í-fflffi^f (CfSjHiflfífcS -tì-5

©Ai

ii>p

402

T H E OTHER

fc-r

28.

s ©a*

WORKER

¿i>o

fill

¡si C i t y *

b T ^ S & i E ©

iCOip.

i n i c i i t ,

¿"5

UZ-f-fro

)

a&©Kff-t?ttfcl.\b>S>.

( ( )

)

HiacDfnlifi'J'b&i,

M^XZtlZfi-cD&UXiX.

• e f f l i t J i i i ^ T - t K u - c i . t , s ^ - t t n i c i i c i .

(

t t t f O ^ Z t t .


^ © ^ ^ i s "Civ-,

r ,

OTii

U t .

o r

t

t>

5 .

6 e,

f C f S U T ,

( ) znznommftotftMtat-cx. ( )

-•momx-. mAck^ttmnm

p . f e i f c ? o ( i s A watte ) - e f t ^ n o n - « ^ ¿ • © f i i i l S i C f E U ' C »

-Sf©sf5-c-#AiC«FSi]©«BH

Appendix

C

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE

404

T H E OTHER

WORKER

--I C^

00 CvJ

CT»

00

ro

O

CNI

(M

01 --H

a, a ^0! +

Id r-l « M SS S O H W n O w ¡x H Z

0) rH «U CD

rH

CO 4J

es

«•H

rH rH

O CO

m -fr

co CO

in co

r-

\D -fr

r>NO

NO rH t-H

$

CS

rH

00

in

ON

00

CS

oo

m rH

ON CS

rcs

CO

m CS

vO CO

m es

CO CS

ON

rH co

00 CO

ON 00

O EH

g Sû

sO CM i—1

-fr 00

O r-l r-l

co 00

CS ON

o CO

o m

rH Sf

1—1 CS

cs rH

vD

cN en

ri rH

CS r-l

vO rH

ON rH

o rH

rH CO

ON CS

co rH

rH 1—i

rH

r-l

oo

o rH

-fr

CS CS

rH CS

CS rH

VO

H O H — i 1

ON

oo

NO

m

R«-T 4J O H

O

-FR ON

r«.

00 ON

r-H

co r-

O CS

o> r-t

cs

co

rH

-fr

NO

00 co

CO m

CO co

oo m

00

O »35. 243, 323. 374- 419 Dubin, Robert, g8, 131, 2gg, 318

INDEX

Human Relations in Administration, 420, 423 Working Union-Management Relations, 428 World of Work, 422, 428 Dunlop, J . T., 7, 10, 20, 30, 36-37 Industrial Relations Systems, 41315 duo-cultural research, 27-30, 43 "eager beavers" in Japan, 108 East-West continuum, 37 Eby, Herbert O., 326 "A Business-Like Approach to Labor Relations," 429 echelons, management, in Japan, 290 economic changes affecting industry, xii, xv, 3 conditions, in Japan now, 79-84, 89, 351 in U.S. pre-Civil War, 47 in U.S. now, 55-60 crises, Japanese postwar, and need-based compensation, 233. 253 and Japanese unions, 333 development, in Japan (18681910), 69 and mobility, 127 involvement between company and worker, see involvement "man," 5, 105, 109, 125, 345, 365 nationalism, 5 planning, 84 policy of Meiji era, 70 prosperity in Japan, 374 status of worker, 66 "woman," 109, 125, 345 see also business crises economics, 35 economists and mobility of labor, 127 economy American, 50

449

dual structure of Japanese, see dual structure dynamic, 55-56 Japanese, postwar, 240 Japanese, structural change in, 73 Edo era, 71 education, 19, 63, 368 changes in, and industry, xii Co-, in Japan, 224 competitive, in Japan, 108, 134 compulsory, in Japan, 82 in U.S., 131 in present survey, 107 postwar, in Japan, 87, 120, 193, 373 private and governmental, in Japan, 217 university and technical, in Japan, 70 education-job grouping, 242 educational achievement a determinant in promotion, 212, 214 in Japan, 86 and promotional ceilings, 241 resulting from industrialization, 5 as status determinant, 192, 196, 198, 212, 348 and wage rates in Japan, 136-37, 241, 242 egalitarianism, 47, 108, 168-70 in Japan postwar, 203-204, 206, 209, 217, 253, 355 in leadership patterns, 182, 184, 187, 189 against performance rating, 300 rebellion against, in Japan, 169 in U.S., 177 ego assertion in U.S., 1 1 7 electrical industry, 39 electronic computers, 8 see also automation eligibility requirements for hiring examinations, 200

450

T H E OTHER

WORKER

elite (s) in Japanese society, 155 management, 32 of regular workers in J a p a n , 231, 377 in large industries, 243, 357, 362, 374 of society, 3 1 5 employer, influence of in marriage decisions, 172 see also manager employment contract, 107 departments, 53 equality, 61 full, 14-15 indirect methods of, in J a p a n , 70 in U.S., 52-53 managers, 53 patterns, in J a p a n , 132-37 in U.S., 130-32 placement service, 128 policy in J a p a n , bushi based / college based, 193 practices, see below problems, 1 1 9 security, see security services, 132 stabilization laws in J a p a n , 88 structure, 73 see also unemployment employment commitment, xv, 14-15, 18, 127-56, 201 in Japan, see career commitment in U.S., 345-46, 366-67 employment continuity in J a p a n , see career commitment in U.S., 346-47, 366-67 see also employment commitment; security, job employment/labor marketing practices once-in-a-lifetime, in Japan, see career commitment

"organization-centered" in J a p a n , 123 "job-centered" in U.S., 123 Employment Security L a w (Japan) (*947). 425 Endo, Motoo: Studies of the History of Artisans in Japan, 416 "energy revolution," 145 England, see Britain Enlightenment, 47, 62, 98 enterprise consciousness of regular male workers in J a p a n , 376 enterprise union (ism), 38, 83, 89, 91, 165, 322, 325, 328-29, 33839. 358-59. 362, 379 equal-pay-for-equal-work principle, 293 equality of individuals, 98 male-female, 356, 369 (see also discrimination; sex) equilibrium in industrial relations, x, xii-xiii, 27. 34. 54- 358, 363-79 passim between skill and length-of-service hierarchy in J a p a n , 137 of social, economic, and cultural forces, 359 ethnic differentiation as status determinant, 192-93, 198 prejudice, 50 see also discrimination, racial ethnocentrism, ix, 28 Europe, 12 industrial relations in, 25-26 evaluation, job-, see job evaluation/comparison of employees, 53 individual/interpersonal, by management-assessed work performance, 205-206, 208-10, 230, 348, 356, 368, 376 and individual wage differentials, 241-42

INDEX see also classification; merit rating; performance rating examinations civil service, 224 hiring/job entry, in Japan, 108, 134. i3 6 -37. 1 4 1 > 200 for professional and managerial workers, 225 for j o b grade promotions in Japan, 201, 219 for regulars in large firms in Japan, 242 "exchange-of-persons" programs, 12 executive, role of, 63 experience-ability equation, 213-14 exploitation paternalism in services, in U.S., 163, 235 of workers in Japan, 70, 90 "explosion-of-industry" period in U.S., 48 ff., 98 see also industrialization exports of goods and services, 57

face-to-face group decision m a k i n g in Japan, 288, 375 interactions, 4, 169, 184, 189 factory (-ies) built in Japan (18691910), 70 factory employment, 66 Factory L a w (Japan)

( 1 9 1 1 ) , 74

factory workers, in Japan, 70, 72, 77 see also ko-in Factory T r a d e U n i o n Committees, 9 fair-employment practices, 65 Fair L a b o r Standards Act, 1938, 64 family (-ies) business (kagyo), 71 Imperial, 100-101 isolation of, in U.S., 162

451

Japanese, 84-85 lineage, 71 merchant, in Japan, 71-72, 75, 90 separation from work, see work life size, 85 family allowances, 234, 246-51, 273 in Japan, 241, 377 see also survivors insurance family background and status demand, 192 family property, kasan, 71 family relations, 6, 34 in U.S., individualistic, 170 family systems changes in, and industry, xii, 60, 66 conjugal/nuclear/nonextended/ isolated/modern, 60, 85, 162, 172, 264 in Japan, ideal, 74 kazoku-seido, 84, 91 two contemporary, 169-70 rural/extended, 60 family workers unpaid, in Japan, 72, 81-82, 91, !32. 4*9 in U.S., 81 see also home workers Farley, M i r i a m S., 323 Aspects of Japan's Labor Problems, 429 farms/farmers in Japan, 69, 84-85 in U.S., 55 favoritism, 208 Federal H o u s i n g Administration, 263 females, see women festivals in Japan as service programs, 243 feudalism absent in U.S., 46 industrial, 263 in Japan, 68, 71, 172

458

THE o t h e r w o r k e r

supervisors' involvement seen as, in J a p a n , 167 Fiedler, Fred E., 162 Leader Attitudes and Group Effectiveness, 423 finance as occupation, 56 see also income; foreign exchange rates; tax fire-fighting companies, 203 fishing, 49, 81 Fitzpatrick, J o s e p h P., 105 "Individualism in American Industry," 421 fixed investment in work force, 354 flexibility of work force in J a p a n , 1 35-36 see also mobility flow charts, 288 food shortages, 204 foreign exchange rates, 240 foreman dilemma of modern, 3 1 1 as focus of personnel services, 284 status of, 1 9 1 see also supervisor, first-line forests/forestry, 49, 55 formal versus informal organizations, 199 see also status system formulism, 20, 23 four-day work week, 367 see also hours of work; standard work week France, 4, 69, 70, 238, 240 free enterprise economy/system, 66, 315 and changing concept of government, 237 in J a p a n , 286 freedom of expression, 3 1 8 individual/personal, 98 in J a p a n , 87 subordinated to work, 1 1 3 - 1 7 in marriage choice, 1 7 2

restraints on, in U.S., 60 social and religious, 46-47 of speech in J a p a n , 87 French, J . R . P., 164-65 frontier (s) " n e w , " 63 philosophy, 55, 98 psychology, 46 (see also individualism, rugged) of U.S., 46 f u e l allowances in J a p a n , 241 Fujita, W., see Okuchi Fujiwara, Kotatsu: The Political Values in Contemporary Japan, 429 fukoku-kyohei (building of a prosperous nation with military strength), 69 fukushi-kigyo-shugi (welfare enterprise) , 83 Fukutake, T a d a s h i (ed.): Problems in Japanese Sociology, 420 f u l l employment, 14-15 see also labor scarcity; unemployment functional division/specialization of life in modern society, 19495. ! 9 8 see also specialization

"gang-boss," 40 Gantt, Henry L., 237 T a s k and Bonus plan, 252 gap (s) generation, in Japanese industry, see generation between industrial practices and environmental context/practices-context, 337-38, 364, 369. 3 7 1 between perceptional patterns of worker subgroups, 364, 373 (see also generation gap) between personal values and company, 32, 1 1 0 (see also goals)

INDEX

between worker perception and management practice, 157, 183, 209, 223, 294, 304, 312, S37-38, 363-64, 368, 375, 37778 see also tensions in U.S., 144, 154, 156, 261, 34647. 367 Gardner, Burleigh B „ 223-24 and Moore, D. G.: Human Relations in Business, 425 generation gap in Japanese industry, 87, 91, 100, 113, 269, 272, 337< 339. 352. 37 1 ' 379- 4»4> 429 see also gap; lag; tensions gensei-teki-rodohankei (primeval labor relations), 69-72 Germany, 4, 48, 238 gerontocracy (choro-shugi) /gérontocratie control, 217-18 see also age; seniority Gilbreth, Frank B., 237 Gilson, Thomas Q., 293 and Lefcowitz, M. J.: A Plantwide Productivity Bonus in a Small Factory, 428 Ginzberg, Eli: Human Resources, 422 glass industry, 3g goals economic/political, of labor unions, 19 organizational, see below technical, and status hierarchy, 193 work-oriented in Japan, and social order, 204 worker participation in setting production, 164 goals, organizational/company, 1314, 78, 95-96, 102-103, 15961, 190, 344-45. 3 6 °. 362-63 career protection as, 133 relation of worker to, 32, 95-96, 360

453

in Japan, 150, 352-53, 372-73 resistance of younger Japanese workers to, 373 subordination to, 113-17 wage schemes related to, 233 see also identification of worker and firm; motivation; taxation government agencies of, 7, 10 alliance of labor unions with, 317 changing concept of, 237 contracts, 65 control of foreign loans, 84 employees, in Japan, 88 in U.S., 56, 59 women, 224 hostility to central, in U.S., 47 housing assistance, 265 in industrial society, x-xi in Japan, centralized, 70 link with industry, 87-88 local clan, 69-70 protection of workers, 76-77 suppressed labor movements, 76-77 and personnel decisions, 18, 277 role/control/influence of, in business, 53, 63-66 in employment, 154 in industrial relations, 9-10 in labor relations, 59, 88-89 in wage determination, 59, 89, 102 U.S., and social security benefits, 237. 3 6 9-7° and unemployment, 132 see also legislation Great Britain, see Britain Great Depression, see depression gross national expenditure, 121 gross national product in Japan, 80 in U.S., 55, 57 in U.S. (1951-1960), 80

454

T H E

OTHER

WORKER

group (s) dynamics, gg effectiveness, 162 high-producing, 165 influence on Japanese worker, 186 leader, 210, 212 (see also gang boss) organized, 116 responsibility to in-company/outcompany, see responsibility role in motivation, see collective guaranteed annual wage and employment, 132 minimum pay, see wages Gutenberg, Erich, 288, 427 gyomu bunsho kitei (departmental, functional work division), 288 Hagen, Everett E., 32, 414 Hall, J. F.: Psychology of Motivation, 420 Hamashima, Akira: " O n the Stand and Method in the Study of Classes in Sociology," 420 han, clan, 72 handicrafts in Japan, 68-6g hanko (clan school) , 2 1 7 Hansen, Harry (ed.) : The World Almanac, 1964, 415 Harbison, Frederick, and Charles A. Myers: Management in the Industrial World, 32, g6, 41415, 420 Harris, see Sutton Harty, J. Q „ 428 Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, 164 Hawthorne plant, Western Electric Company, 53-54 Hazama, Hiroshi, 74-75, 166 A Genealogy of Japanese Management, 416, 423

" T h e Logic and Development of Keiei-Kazoku-Shugi," 417 health, 5, 63 insurance in Japan, 88, 258 standards at work, 65 see also sick leave Health Insurance Law (Japan) (ig22), 258 heavy manufacturing industries, 5g machinery in, 73 Henry, William E., 63 " T h e Business Executive," 416 Herzberg, Dr. Frederick, g7 et al.: Job Attitudes, 420 et al.: Motivation to Work, 428 hierarchical protectionism in Japan, 135 hierarchy of basic needs, 96 of jobs, 191 job-income, ig8 length-of-service/seniority, in Japan, 136-37, 362 organizational, 15-16 shikaku, 202 status, see status supervisor's position in, 166 system in Japan, 75, 85, 102, 108, 377 technical, igg traditional skill, 214 work-centered, 200 see also seniority "hire-and-fire" decisions, 278 see also decision making Hirosaki, Shinhachiro, 100 Personnel Management in Japan, 420 historical development of industrial relations in Japan, 6g-7g in U.S., 45-54 historical survey of worker motivation in Japan, 100-103, 372

INDEX in U.S., 98-99 hobbies, 234 see also leisure; recreation hoko (upward act of giving), 72 holiday pay, 17, 238, 243 Holland, 69 Homan, H. L., and D. Borat: " A new Approach to Employee Motivation," 413 home workers, 48 see also family workers Homestead Act (U.S.), 48 Homestead strikes (1892), 50 honko (regular production workers) , 219 honnin-kyu (worker's subsistence wage), 240 Hosokawa, Fukuji: " T h e Family Allowance System," 426 hospitalization insurance, 243, 257 hours of work, 276, 349 decisions on, 295, 310 in Japan, 71, 113 in U.S., 52, 56, 64-65, 113, 148 see also four-day work week; standard work week housewives working part time in U.S., 219 see also family workers; women housing aid, 238 allowance in Japan, 241 company, 262-68, 273 facilities in Japan, 243 loans, 88, 349 programs in Japan, 357, 362 human relations, 6, 8 problems in industry, 60 research in U.S., 99 and status demands, 192-93 and supervisor involvement, 168 training programs, 163 human relations movement school, 53-54, 62, 83, 110, 194, 269, 345

455

humanistic philosophy of management, 181 "ideal" system of industrial relations, 20-21, 23 identification of supervisors, 15, 161 of worker and firm, 70, 85, 104, 110-14, 124, 151, 281, 328, 337. 373 and decision making, 281 encouraged by recreation programs, 269, 369 see also goals, organizational, relation of workers to ideology (-ies) business, in U.S., 47, 62 in Japan, changing, 352 conflicting, 87 ie (family), 71-72, 74, 84-85, 170, 172 collective security concept of, 79 and concept of "ownership," 418 dissolution of, 170, 172 immigrants, 48-49 see also migratory workers Imperial Family, 100-101 (koshitsu), 101 Imperial University, 193 "imperialism, American," 84 imperialistic expansion, 72 impersonalization of industrial relations, 8, 181-82, 325 benefit measures countering, 23940. 369 worker reaction against, 240 see also depersonalized; isolation imports into U.S., 55 incentive plans/schemes, 233 contribution-based, 377 group, 78, 252, 256 individual, 78, 97, 252, 256 lack of in Japan, 136, 203 long service, in Japan, 136, 203 theory of, 159

456

T H E OTHER

WORKER

in U.S. plants, 10g, 197 wage-based, 237, 242, 252 in J a p a n , 253 see also bonus income differential, see wage differential Japanese, per capita, 80 national, 69 national, and wage comparisons, 240 U.S., national, 55, 57 personal, 55, 57 see also wages income tax exemptions for dependents, 248 provisions encourage fringe benefits, 236 relief on profit-sharing bonuses, 252 see also taxation independence, personal, 182 see also individualism individualism in J a p a n ( 1 9 1 0 - 3 0 ) , 100, 108 rugged, 62, 66, 163 in U.S., 46, 62, 66, 98-99, 104, 1 1 6 , 1 7 ° . >75» 179. 2 6 5 ' 348-49 reinterpretation of, 99, 105, 345 individualistic societies, 318 use of committees in, 280 industrial engineers, 196, 252, 290 see also personnel managers industrial relations basic functions in, 12-19, 25, 45 emergence of, 7-12 equilibrium and change in, x, xii-xiii, 49, 343-80 functions, 53, 56, 65 in J a p a n , contemporary, 79-91 and passim historical development of, 6979 process, xiii-xiv rationality of, 19-23 research, 26-27, 43

in U.S., contemporary, 55-66 and passim historical development of, 4554 industrial relations patterns/practices, xiv, 35 influencing labor unions on, 59 in J a p a n , 68, 89 in U.S., 56, 58 industrial relations profession, see industrial engineers; personnel managers industrial relations systems, x-xi, xiii, 6, 8, 10, 12, 20-21, 23, 25-30, 98 center of attraction in, 50 European, 26 and government controls, 63 as part of society, 34 in United States, 26 and worker motivation, 95 ff industrial revolution in England, 127 in J a p a n , second, 73, 75 industrialization, x, 3-25, 66, 344 accommodation to, 52 human relationships and, 33 impact of, on labor force, 314-16 in J a p a n , 4, 68, 70, 72-73, 76, 79, 85, 90, 1 1 2 , 155, 167 and government influence, 87 leads to differentiation of roles, 160 logic of, xii, 2 1 , 23 modified family control in J a p a n , 172 unit in U.S., 60 process of, xv, 3-7, 55 in United States, 4, 26, 46-47, 49, 154 see also depersonalized; impersonalization inflation in Japanese economy, 78, 204, 247 inheritance in U.S., 170 initiative of workers in J a p a n , 184

INDEX

institutional approach, 25 -behavioral approach, 42-43 sciences, 42 insurance employees in, 59 health, in Japan, 88, 258 hospitalization, 243, 257 medical care, 243 old-age, see old age social, in Japan, 88, 243 survivors, see survivors unemployment, see unemployment "intelligent selfishness," 5 interdisciplinary studies, 42 interest (s) company and worker, in Japan, 102 individual/private, in Japan, 101 public, in Japan, 101, 126 self-, 108 explored in questionnaire, 104 see also goals; motivation intermediary group in management, 158 see also man-in-the-middle; specialists; supervisors internalization, worker's, of organizational norms, 104 see also goals, organizational; identification of worker and firm International Labour Organization, 12 international studies of industrial relations, see cross-cultural International Teamsters Union, 59 Inter-university Study of Labor Problems in Economic Development, 23-24 investment bankers, 49 involvement company, in service programs, 243, 245, 250-75 passim, 349, 357- 369

457

in workers' off-job life, 232, 238-39. 246- 349 multiphasic, see multiphasic mutuality in, 359-63, 374, 377 supervisor's, in workers' off-job life, see supervisor workers' in company, and decision making, see participation see also work life, separation from home life iron industry in Japan, 76 ore in Japan, 80 irrationality in industrial relations, 27 see also rationalism Ishida, Takeo, 194 "Status and Work," 424 Isoda, Susumu: Labor Laws, 423 isolation of individual in industry, 66, 120 see also depersonalized; impersonaliza tion isolationism, intellectual, 23 Israel, J., 165 Italy, 80, 238, 240 Jaffe, A. J„ and R. O. Carleton: Occupational Mobility in the United States, 422 janitor, status of, 191 Japan Institute of Labor, 418-19, 422 Japan Productivity Center, 144-45, 422-23 Japan Teachers' Union, 424 job (s) analysis, 136, 197 -centered status system, see status system wage schemes, see work-centered wage system classification, 196-99 (see also job evaluation) as co-ordinates, 191

458

THE OTHER WORKER

dilution, 166 evaluation, 197-98, 237, 241-42 as status determinant in U.S., see evaluation of employees; work-centered status system grade promotion in Japan, 200 groups, 200-201 opportunity, governs mobility in U.S., 132 in Japan, 142 -oriented needs, 208 performance, see below requirements, see work requirements satisfaction, see below specification, 197 standards, 136 and discharge, 141 standardization, 182 structure, 197 titles, 192 job performance analyzed in scientific management movement, 53 and decision making, 164 evaluation of employees based on, see evaluation; merit rating; performance rating as status determinant in U.S., see work-centered status system Job Relations Training ( J R T ) , 163 Job satisfaction, 97 and decision making, 164 related to promotion, 428 and security, 129 (see also security) and status structure, 191 jomukai (managing directors' meeting) , 428 associations, 48 shoemakers, 47 juku (private school) , 2 1 7 junior (kohai), 215, 217

jurisdictional disputes, 65 jurisprudence, 35 kacho (section chief), 192, 195 Kagiyama, Yoshimitsu: New Shikaku-Seido, 424 kagyo (family business), 71-72, 74 and concept of "ownership," 418 Kai, R. K.: Shikaku-Seido, 424 Kai, Showa Dojin (ed.) A Historical Review of Wage Structures in Our Country, 418, 426 The Significance of Unemployment, 422 Kajinishi, Mitsuhaya, K. Oshima, T . Kato, and T . Ouchi: The Development of Capitalism in Japan, 417 kakeihojo-teki 71

(auxiliary workers),

kaki (mid-year lump-sum payment) , 254 Kalish, Carol, F. Kellog, and M. Kessler: Labor Force and Employment in I96I, 420 Kamishima, Jiro, 217 The Mental Structure of Modern Japan, 425, 428 kasan (family property), 71 Kasuga Shrine, 68 Kato, T „ see Kajinishi Kawai, Eijiro: Rodo Mondai Kenkyu (Studies in Labor Problems) , 4 1 4 Kawashima, Takeyoshi, 84 The Familial Structure of Japanese Society, 423 The Family System as an Ideology> 419 Kayser, C., see Sutton kazoku-kyu (family's subsistence wage), 240 kazoku-seido (family system), 8485

INDEX

keiei-kazoku-shugi (managementfamilyism), 69, 72, 74-75, 8384. 4i7 and concept of "ownership," 418 Keihin workers, 189 Keizai Doyu Kai (Japan Committee for Economic Development) , 417, 420, 427-28 Keizai Tokei Kenkyu Kai (Economic Indexes), 419 Kellog, F., see Kalish Kerr, Clark: Industrialism and Industrial Man, 413, 428 with Stieber, Jack W. et al.: U.S. Industrial Relations: The Next Twenty Years, 238, 423, 425. 430 kessai (approval) of management, 287 Kessler, M., see Kalish ki (form/class consciousness among students), 217 kimatte shikyu suru kyuyo (regular payment), 254 kimben (diligent), 117 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 61 Why We Can't Wait, 416 Kluckhohn, Clyde, n o " T h e Study of Values," 421 Knights of Labor, 49-50 Kobayashi, Y „ see Nomura kokai (junior), 215, 217 ko-in (production worker), 70, 78, 145, 166, 204, 253, 287 see also shokuin-koin Kojima, Kenji: Wages in Japan, 426 kokka (nation), 101 Korea annexed by Japan in 1910, 72 lost to Japan, 79 Korean War, 88, 137, 425 Kornhauser, Arthur, et al (eds.): Industrial Conflict, 415

459

Kosaka, Masatoshi: "Issues in Housing Problems and 'Ownership Plans'," 426-27 koshitsu (Imperial Family) , 1 0 1 Kouchi, Saburo, 112 "Perceptions on Life and Attitudes Toward Life," 421 kumi (youth company) , 2 1 7 Kyokai, K. K.: A Survey Report on Merit-rating Systems, 424

Labor Banks (Japan), 265 labor boss (es) in Japan, 135, 149, 167, 358, 425 labor-capital confrontation, 9 labor commissions in Japan, 89 labor control in Japan (1930-45), 69 labor costs in Japan, 251 in U.S. pre-Civil War, 47 in U.S. now, 60, 237 wages as core of, 237 labor force in Japan (1868-1910), 71 in Japan, wartime, 102 in Japan now, 81, 83 in U.S. (1962), 56, 59 women in, 62 labor legislation, 9-10, 18 for negotiations and disputes, 10 protective, 10 social, 10 Labor-Management Reform Act (Landrum-Griffin Act), 1959, 63 Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley Law), 1947, 64, 320 labor-management relations, 52, 281 see also worker-management labor market factors, 25 fluid, in Japan, 223, 376 job-centered, growing in Japan, 223

460

T H E OTHER

WORKER

labor marketing practices in J a p a n , see career commitment Labor Ministry survey (1954-55) > 135 labor movement (s), 12, 47 birth of modern U.S., 49-50 in J a p a n ( 1 9 1 0 - 1 9 3 0 ) , 72-76 in J a p a n , postwar, 79 studies of, 25, 43 in U.S., 237 see also labor unions labor organization in U.S., 58 labor problems, 73 Labor Relations Adjustment Law (Japan) (1946), 88 labor scarcity in J a p a n , 374, 425 national, 56 in World War II, 244, 425 see also full employment labor/worker solidarity, 223, 231, 247. 322, 379 Labor Standards Law (Japan) (1947), 88, 258 labor surplus in U.S. in 1930s, 99 see also unemployment labor turnover, see turnover labor unions/trade unions, xv, 8-10, 18-ig, 32-34, 48, 5 1 , 63, 66 alliance/participation function of. S ^ - 1 ? ' 320-21, 323-24 bank, 88 as communication medium, 31719. 321-22, 324, 333-39, 35°. 359 communist-dominated, 179 and decision making, 277, 286-87 and discharge grounds, 141 economic functions of, 83 enterprise, in J a p a n , see enterprise unions eradicated paternalism in U.S., 237 goals of, 34, 186

in J a p a n , 73, 76, 82-83, 88-90, 102, 133, 204, 213, 353, 35859 affiliation of, 84 and individual rating records, 209

and merit rating, 303, 378 opposed to family allowance, 250 opposed to individual incentives, 253 opposed to wage schemes, 242 and promotional decisions, 306307 recreational programs of, 26g role of, 379 and service programs, 243 support housing aid, 267 of temporary workers, 219 younger workers and, 373 and job security, 134 leaders, 33-34, 56, 59, 63 leadership impact of large, 58 "local," in U.S., 38 and management, see below membership, 52 as status demand, 192 and need-based wages, 234 political role/affiliations of, 33, 89 protest functions of, 315-16, 320, 322-23, 325 role of, 314-39, 350, 370-71 security, 65 structure/characteristics of, in U.S., 58-59 and supervisors, 158-59 autonomy, 185-86 involvement, 167-68 support length-of-service criteria, 212

of survey firms, 124 and technological change, 1 2 1 in U.S. institutionalize seniority, 197. 348 labor unionism, 47 class-conscious, in Japan, 223

INDEX influence of, in Japanese industry, 116 and need for job security, 129 in postwar Japan, 204 Labor Union Law (Japan) (1945), 88, 322 labor-union management balance in Japan, 1 1 4 challenge in U.S., 114, 281 co-operation schemes, 317 in Japanese productivity, 145 relations in Japan, 213 Labour Party (Britain), 317 lag/gap between industrial systems in different nations, 21-23 laissez-faire leadership patterns, 164 land area of Japan, 80 productivity in Japan, 80 reform in Japan, 72 Landrum-Griffin Act (Labor-Management Reform Act) (1959), 63 Langsner, Adolph, and Herbert G. Zollitsch: Wage and Salary Administration, 428 language honorific style of, 168, 217 ordinary style of, 168 problems in present survey, 36 as status determinant, 193 layoff(s) after automation, 123, 345, 367 decision on, 299 not practical in Japanese industry, 103, 148, 354 production, in Japanese survey firms, 149 in U.S. survey firms, 151 restrictions on, 128 seniority rules in, see seniority in U.S., 140 see also surplus of labor leadership duties, selection for, 212 leadership patterns, 164, 168-69, 239- 370

461

authoritarian, 164, 189 consultative, 347 democratic, 164, i68-6g egalitarian, 164, 168-70, 182, 184, 187, 189, 375 laissez-faire, 164 leadership role(s) of large firms, 39-40, 58 need of, 193 participation: supervisors, role overlap workers' share in, 347; see also 368 leadership, supervisory, 1 5 9 f t 166, 168, 179, 184, 355, 375 see also decision making Lefcowitz, Myron J., see Gilson (legislation civil rights, 61, 63-64 labor, in Japan, 74, 76, 88, 91, 114 social, in U.S., 54, 64-66 state, 65 see also under individual Acts Leighton, A.: Human Relations in a Changing World, 413 leisure, 5 "boom" in Japan, 1 1 2 see also recreation length of service and added responsibility, 218 as factor in promotion, 210-15, 229-30 hierarchy in Japan, 136-37 importance of, in U.S., 215 as status factor, 212, 348 wage increases, 136, 212 of women in Japanese industry, 224 see also experience-ability equation; seniority Levine, Solomon B.: Industrial Relations in Postwar Japan, 429 Lewin, Kurt, 164 Lewis, John L., 51

46a

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Liberal-Democratic Party (Japan), 89-90 liberalism in Japan (1910-1930), 100 licensing, government control on, 84 light industries in Japan, 70, 73 line management, 284-313 passim in Japan, 287, 290 as locus of personal decisions in U.S., 284, 290 see also foreman, supervisors line responsibility, 31 channels of worker participation, see participation line-staff distinctions in jobs, 191 "live and let live," 116, 366 see also individualism living costs, 233 living standards in Japan, 240 reflect job-based status distinction, 198 and status aspiration in Japan, 202 in U.S., 240 living wages, see subsistence wages loans, government control on foreign, 84 Lombard, George F. F., 116 see also Mayo long-term employment in Japanese industry, see career commitment loyal insubordination, 184, 187, 355- 375'7 6 loyalty, 36, 96 to community, 108 division of, in young Japanese, 373. 375 wage schemes based on, 233 of workers staying in company, 151-56 to workplace, 108, 110, 345, 352, 354- 3 6 ° see also diligence; subordination

lump-sum retirement allowances in Japan, 136, 242 lunch periods, paid, 238 see also dining facilities

McGregor, Douglas, 239 "Conditions of Effective Leadership in the Industrial Organization," 426 McMurry, Robert N „ 181 " T h e Case for Benevolent Autocracy," 423 McNair, M. P.: "Thinking Ahead: What Price Human Relations?," 416 Maier, Norman R. F.: Principles in Human Relations, 422 "make-or-buy" decisions, 58, 136 male-female differences in questionnaire responses, see sex; women man-in-the-middle, 159, 298, 334 communication, 334 management associations, 90 authoritarian, in Japan, 83 elite, 32 and employment commitment, 15 security, 137$, 141 ff evaluations of workers' performance, see evaluation -familyism (keiei-kazoku-shugi), 69, 72, 74-76, 83-84 -guide position specifications, 296 hierarchy/layers, 8, 15 ideology, see philosophy below in Japan, 75, 79 literature, 194 organizations, 52 philosophy, 12, 62, 66 "bottom-up "/consultative, 181, 188 humanistic, 181 in Japan, 75, 79, 138, 416 practices, xiv, 62, 66

INDEX prerogatives, 18 union pressure for reduction of, 114 protectionism in Japan, 101-102, 133» 137 relation to workers, x-xi, 31-33 responsibility, social, 101 for unqualified workers, 141-42 schools of thought, 50 and worker mobility, 128-29 manager(s) and "good human relations," 110 separate from owner, 49 U.S., fail to get worker responses, 110, 144 managerial personnel in Japan, 70-71, 201 women as, 87, 224-25 see also shoku-in Manchuria, 72 war in, 76 Manchurian Incident, (1931), 77 manpower problems in U.S., 127 shortage, see labor scarcity see also resources manufacturing, 56-57 companies, large, 65 industries, U.S., and labor turnover, 132 plants in Japan, 69, 71 workers in Japan, 73 market analysis, 57 expansion of, 7 labor, see labor mass, 58 potential in U.S., 57 process in Japan, 155 -share agreements in Japan, 149 in U.S., 56-57 value of work, 81, 245 marriage, 188-89 customs in Japan, 38, 170, 172-74, 189 in Japan, arranged, 172-73

463

practice in U.S., 170 see also family Marx, Karl, 25 Marxism, 419 Marxist social scientists, 86 teachings in Japan, 87 Maslow, A. H., 95, 96, 129 Motivation and Personality, 422 " A Theory of Human Motivation," 420 mass-consumption, 80 mass production, 83 of employee services, 235 in Japan, 103, 167 materialism (busshitsu-shugi), 418 ego-centered, in Japan, 373 Matsushima, Shizuo, 108, 123, 213 Japanese Characteristics of Personnel Management, 418, 421-22, 425 with T . Nakano: An Outline of Japanese Society, 419 Mayo, Elton, 53, 62, 116, ig7 with Lombard, George F. F.: Teamwork and Labor Turnover in the Aircraft Industry of Southern California, 421 Meany, George, 179 mechanization, 4g, 373 of coal mines in Japan, 145 mediation in industrial relations in Japan, 89 medical care insurance, 243 Meiji Restoration/era (1868) , 6972, 76-77, 193 mercantilism, 70 merchant class in Japan, 72 -zaibatsu groups, 75 merchant/commercial family groups, in Japan, 71, 90 merit adjustments of wages in Japan, 13 6 ' 35 8 -based wage increases, 290-94

464

THE o t h e r

worker

basis of post-retirement work, 136 de-emphasis of, in J a p a n , 108 in J a p a n not reflected in wages, 240 rating, 18, 197, 290, 299-304, 34950, 376, 378 -seniority rule in U.S., 229 see also classification; evaluation; performance meshita (inferior-status individuals), 175 method, work, 187 methodology of present research, 2 5 ft 35ff>

meue

«31

(superior-status individuals), 175 Mexico, 80 mibun-seido (status classification system) 203-204 Michigan University Survey Research Center, 165 middle classes in U.S., 63 middleman, see man-in-the-middle migratory workers in J a p a n (dekasegi-gata), 7 1 , 85, 167, 172 see also immigrants Miike Mine dispute (i960), 124 Miike Strike, Mitsui Coal Mining Company, 427 militarism in J a p a n , 26-27, 69, 87, 100 and labor control, 77-79, 3 1 8 military programs, 65 military service, universal, in J a p a n , 217 Miller, F. B.: "Why I'm For Professionalizing," 4 1 3 Mills, C. W.: The New Men of Power, 428 mines/mining, 56, 234, 244, 262-63, 269 modernization in J a p a n , 70 production in J a p a n (1868-1910), 69, 71 minimum wage schemes, see wages

Ministry of Education ( J a p a n ) , 424 Ministry of Labor, 88 (Japan), 140, 254, 419-22, 425-26 .Minobe, R., see Arisawa minshu (common people) family type, 169 Mitsui Coal Mining Company, Miike Strike of, 427 mobility, inter-union, 324 mobility of labor an employment commitment, 12728, 154, 354, 366 factors modifying, 15 forced, 140, 142, 346 freedom of, lost, 235 in J a p a n , 77, 86, 91, 156, 244 hierarchical/upward, 86 inter-firm, 86, 223, 231, 309 regional, 86 in U.S., 56, 60, 1 3 1 , 140, 144, »5». 154-55» l 6 2 . 239. 346> 366 upward, 16 (see also promotion) voluntary, 366 "monopolistic capital," 84 monopoly in Japanese business, 84 in U.S. industry, 49 Moore, David G., 223-24 see also Gardner Morgan, J . P., 49 Mori, Goro: Personnel Management in Postwar Japan, 418 motivation to work, xv, 13-14, 60, 95-126, 344 ff, 352-54, 365-66 collective, in Japan, see collective employee, 8, 95 ff high/good, 95 historical survey of, in J a p a n , 100103, 372 in U.S., 98-99 individualistic, in U.S., 116, 361 in J a p a n , 372-73 management and, 32 sources, 104-109 status structure and, 191

INDEX

wages believed to be chief, in U.S., 237 motivation of workers to join unions, 326 for participation, 181, 281, 289 motor vehicle firms in U.S., 57 multiphasic involvement economic, of company and worker, 236, 245-46, 248, 256, 268, 348, 356-57, 360 in industry, 162, 349, 360, 362, 366 of superior in off-job setting, 177, 189 music programs, 238 Myers, Charles A., 212, 263, 320 see also Harbison, Frederick; Pigors, Paul Nakano, T., see Matsushima Nakagawa, Shun-ichiro: "Wage Increases and Employee Services," 426 Nakayama, Ichiro: "Japan's Industrialization and Japan's Democratization," 418 nation(s) interdependence of, 23 (kokka), î o i National Association of Manufacturers, 52 National Corporation apartments, 6 National Corporation employees, 88 National Employment Act (1946) (U.S.), 132, 367 national-enterprise socialism, 78, 90 National Industrial Conference Board, 300 National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act) (1935), 61, 64, 3!9 nationalism, 5 in Japan, 100 nationalistic philosophies in Japan, 100 nationality

465

as status demand, 192 Navy Arsenal, 253 need(s) advancement, 193 aspirations felt as, 234 esteem, 157 human, 144 organizational, 144 satisfactions, 177, 348, 355, 360 and organizational goals, 15960, 360, 363 (see also goals, organizational) security, 144, 157 stability, 193 work/job oriented, 208 workers', outside factory, 160 need-based organization theory, 160 need-based social order in Japanese industry, 300 need-based wage/payment plans, 233-35. 24°» 246-48, 251. 273 in Japan, 253 ff, 377 Negro(es) in survey sample, 40 workers and employment equality, 61 see also race nemmatsu ichiji (year-end lumpsum payment), 254 nenko-joretsu (social order based on length of service), 201, 203-204, 209-10, 213, 215, 218, 230, 251, 274-75, 336 incompatible with performance evaluation, 206, 300, 303 neo-paternalism, 238 "new men of power," 319 New York, 47 night-work, pay for, 17 Nihon Rodo Sodomei Yuaikai (Japan Friendly Society of Labor Federations), 76 Nikkeiren (Nihon Keieisha Dantai Remmei) (Japan Federation of Employers' Associations), 90

466

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Nöda, Kazuo: "Entrepreneurship in the Meiji Era," 416-17 Noland, E. William, and E. Wight Bakke: Workers Wanted, 416 Nomura, Tadashi, and Y. Kobayashi (trans.): Management Decision in the Japanese Factory, 428 nonextended family, see family system nontechnical sources of status stratification, see technical demands versus social status determinants noren-wake, 71, 75 notice, length of, 141 nuclear family system, see family system powers, 5 occupational disease, 64 distribution, 56 mobility, see mobility of labor patterns, 56 training in Japan, 88 Odaka, Kunio, 22 "Modernization of Industry and Democratization of Management," 418 "Traditionalism, Democracy in Japanese Industry," 414 "Workers' Alliance to Union and Company in Postwar Japan," 429 off-job situations, status extends to, see status differential/hierarchies off-job involvement of company and worker, see involvement involvement of supervisor and worker, see supervisor see also work life, separation from home life office work, 145 women in, in Japan, 224

see also white-collar workers Ohio State University, 165 Ohkawa, Kazushi, 80 An Analysis of Japanese Economy: Its Growth and Structure, 416, 419 Oji Paper Company, Tomakomai Strike of, 427 Okochi, Kazuo Basic Problems in Social Policies, 416 with Shojiro Ujihara and W. Fujita (eds.), The Structures and Functions of Labor Unions, 418 old age insurance, 64-66 in Japan, 88 medical care in U.S., 257-58, 274 see also pensions, retirement older worker, identification of, with authority/management, 174, 37i see also senior worker oligopoly, 84 on (downward act of giving), 72 one-man businesses, 72 Ono, Toyoaki: Japanese Management and Approval System, 427 "Open Shop Campaign," 52 open shop in American industry, 415 operative job groups, 200 opinion polls, employee, 286 organization role of individual in, 102-103 Western concept of, 103 organization charts, 196, 200, 288 organization size, 7-9 organizational behavior, 54, 66 bond between superior and subordinate, 72 {see also goals) goal, see goals practice, in Japan, 165

INDEX

role of individual, 102-103, 164 (see also supervisors, role of) "tone," 14 Oshima, K., see Kajinishi Ouchi, T . , see Kajinishi out-of-pocket costs, 235 output restrictions, 353 see also "speed question" overcrowding, 50 overtime pay, 17, 64 cuts in, 149 ownership property, in Japan, 71-72 Western concept of individual, 7» Oxley, G. M.: " T h e Personnel Manager for International Operations," 416 oyabun-kobun (parent role-child role), 85 Pacific-Asian countries, 10 Pacific War, go Palmer, Gladys: Labor Mobility in Six Cities, 422 parental autocracy/authority, rebellion against, in U.S., 60, 162, 239 see also paternalism Parsons, Talcott, 23 The Structure of Social Action, 414 participation/involvement in decision making, workers', 33, 161, 164-65, 179, 181-83, 188, 276-313 passim, 349-50 channels of, 33 distrust of, 309 in Japan, 286-89, 355, 358, 362, 368, 378 management fear of, 282 motives influencing, 181, 281-85 protective, 301, 305, 307 in U.S., 186, 283-86, 347 see also supervisors, role overlap

467

particularism/particularistic approach, 23, 28-31, 43 past-present context, 188 paternalism authoritarian, 85 and employee services, 234, 236, 239. 357 in European industry, 417 in Japanese textile industry, 244 post-war, in Japan, 169 rejected in U.S., 162-63, 262, 267, 349. 3 6l > 3 6 9 in U.S. industry, 417 in U.S. pre-1930, 237-38, 273 see also parental authority patriarchal authority Confucian 168 patriarchy, 84 pay, see wages peace, world, 63 peddlars, 72 pension (s), 238 plans in Japan, 136 in U.S., 132, 367 see also old age; retirement funds People's Courts, 204 perception-practice patterns, xiv perceptual data of individual workers, 25 performance rating (s), 230 in Japan, 201, 206, 208, 241, 300304. 35® in survey firms, 424 see also classification; evaluation; merit rating perquisites, 192 "persons-available," recruitment, 134 person-centered status system, see status system personal life, needs and aspirations of, 234 see also involvement; work life separation from home life personal manners as status determinant, 193

468

THE OTHER

WORKER

personal problems relevant to work life, 163 personnel decisions, xv, 17-18, 165, 276 ff personnel function in U.S., 31 personnel management patterns in Japan, 71, 286-89 and U.S. labor turnover, 132 in U.S., work-centered, 197 wartime, in Japan, 100 personnel managers/industrial relations profession, 11-12 status of, in U.S., 284-85 see also industrial engineers personnel policies in Japan, 83, g i in U.S., 285 personnel relations/management, 6, 9 in U n i t e d States, 26 personnel research, 19 Peru, 61 Pfizer, S., see Cutter Philadelphia, 47 philosophy "of abundance," 55 of management, see management physical conditions of work, see w o r k i n g conditions picketing, 65 Pigors, Paul, 212, 263, 320 and Myers, C. A.: Personnel Administration, 414, 425-26, 428 pilot-study of present survey, 36-37, 44, 414 placement, 287 problems, 119 planters of southern states, 48 pluralistic industrialism, 22 society, 98 policy control in decision making, 279 political changes and industry, xii, xv, 3

climate in U.S. (1860-1910), 48 conditions in Japan, 87-90 leadership, postwar, in Japan, 169 organizations, 33 philosophy, 6 thought in U.S., 62 population of Japan, 80 of U.S., 49 of U.S., (1962), 56-57 positional promotion, 214, 242 power configurations, 193 power loom, 3 preference, 212 price structures, 240 primary production/industries, 4 in Japan, 69, 73, 132 in U.S., 4g, 56 "primeval" labor relations in Japan, 69-72, 74 primitive societies, 50, 196 "primitive stagnation," 69 printers' unions, 47 printing industry in Japan, 76 privacy of personal life in U.S., 110, 162, 239, 246, 265, 366-67 see also involvement; work life, separation from home life private industry in Japan large-scale, 88 women workers in, 87 private property/ownership in Japan, 71 sanctity of right of, in U.S., 239, 246, 265, 283 see also social ownership "problem-centered" approach, 2729 problem solving methods in Japan, 288 procedure manuals, 285 production -bonus plan, 241 -control, 179

INDEX curtailment, 148-49 facilities, 244 industrial, in J a p a n ( 1 8 6 8 - 1 9 1 0 ) , 69 large-scale, 58 lines, 49 methods/processes, 7, 49 mining, in J a p a n ( 1 8 6 8 - 1 9 1 0 ) , 69 workers, passim in J a p a n , 90, 173 wage rate for in Japan, 202 in U.S., 56-57 see also blue-collar workers productivity, 17, 96 agricultural, in J a p a n , 69-70, go differentials in J a p a n , 80-81 increase in in Japan, 82, 145 and leadership patterns, 164 management and, 32 rise of, in J a p a n , 75 professional women in J a p a n , 22425 see also women profiles of worker perceptions, 34380 profit-sharing payments, 238, 252, 256, 273 program evaluation, 19 promotion (s), 18, 276 decisions, 295, 299, 304-13, 349, 358. 37°. 378 in J a p a n , 108-109 job satisfaction related to, 428 positional, 214, 242 practice in Japan, 193, 376 in rank, not position, in J a p a n , 166 seniority/length of service/status/ social criteria for, 105, 125, 210-15, 229-30, 348 shikaku, 214, 242 to supervisor, see supervisor symbols of, 212 system in Japan, hierarchical, 71 in U.S., 1 3 1 , 197

469

work requirements as criteria for, 210-15 property ownership, see private property protectionism of workers by management in J a p a n , 101-102, ! 3 3 . »37 Protestantism, 47, 98 psychological conflict in accepting women supervisors, 228 psychology, 35, 95, 360 public assistance, 64 corporations, 89 utilities, 56, 65, 288 works projects, 128 purchase to specifications, 58 Puritan movement/virtues in U.S., 54. 62 race discrimination, 61 prejudice, 50 problems, 86 as status determinant, 192-93, 198 railroad (s), 48 industry in J a p a n , 76 strikes of 1877, 50 rationality substantive, 25 rationalization/rationalism in industrial relations, 7, 20-23, in J a p a n , 1 2 1 , 124 in U.S., 46, 50-54, 99, 368 workers' attitude to, 1 2 1 reciprocal role expectations, 144, 346, 3 6 3 recognition of formal status system, see status system recreation activities, 234 programs, 238, 243, 268-72, 275, 357. 378 recruitment, 14 in J a p a n , 134 see also selection

470

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Reformation, 47 reforms, postwar, in Japan, 100 regional allowances in Japan, 241 regular workers in Japanese industry. 134-37. »49- 353- 362, 376-77. 425 honko, 219 status of, 218-23, 376 wages of, 240 and wage differentials, 218-23, 229-31 religious discrimination, 60 remuneration, xv, 40, 52, 250 contribution-based, see contribution based need-based, see need-based see also rewards; benefits; wages Research Committee on the Study of Japanese National Character, 421, 423, 429 resignations in business decline in Japan, 149-50 resources fluid allocation of, 127 (see also mobility) human/manpower, 55, 65 natural, in Japan, 79 in U.S., 46, 55 see also manpower responsibility (-ies) collective, see collective in decision making, see decision making to in-company groups, 105, 366 pluralistic versus individual, 288 of senior workers, 217-18, 229 social, 83 greater in men workers, 109 of supervisors, 165 of workers, 103-105, 116, 141 job-centered, 120 to out-company group (family, friends and society), 104-105, 125-26 Restoration, Meiji, see Meiji retail

facilities in Japan, 243 trade, 57, 81 retirement age early, in business decline, 149 in Japan, 136 preparation for, 238 in U.S., 131 see also pensions retirement funds, 88 see also old age; pensions Reuther, Walter P., 367 Revolution, American, 47 rewards, 16-17, 23a"75> 377 see also bonuses Reynolds, Lloyd G „ 51, 128, 248, 321 Labor Economics and Labor Relations, 415, 422, 425-26, 429 rice crop in Japan (1868-1910), 69 now, 80 ringi (written request for top-management approval), 287-88 rinji-ko (temporary workers), 75, 219, 223, 425 rinji kyuyo (temporary payment), 254 risk capital, 7 roads, development of, 3 Roberts, Harold S., 10 with Brissenden, Paul F. (eds.) : The Challenge of Industrial Relations in PacificAsian Countries, 413 Rockefeller, John D., 49 Rodo Kumiai Kiseikai (Labor Union Promotion Society), 76 rodo-sampo (three labor laws), 88 Roethlisberger, Fritz J., 53-54, 197, S" " T h e Foreman: Master and Victim of Double T a l k , " 428 "Human Relations: Rare, Medium or Well Done?," 415 and W. J. Dickson: Management and the Worker, 415

INDEX see also Zaleznik role (s) expectations, reciprocal, see reciprocal fulfillment, 16 of individual in organization/organizational, 102-103, 164 integration/differentiation/sharing/separation of supervisors, see supervisors of males in industry, 109 of management elite, 32 of women in industry, see women of workers, see worker roles Romukanri Tokei Soran (Reference on Personnel Management Statistics), 426-28 roshi-kyogi-kai (labor-management consultation), 324 Rostow, W. W., 46, 47, 68, 80 The Stages of Economic Growth, 416 rule (s) of company as factor in motivation, 103 on decision making in Japan, 2g5 (see also decision making)

making and enforcing, 114, 12526, 352 seniority, see seniority web of, 50, 314 Russia, 9, 69, 90 see also communism Russian Revolution, 73 Russo-Japanese War, (1904-1905), 72 safety administration, 19, 53 needs, 129 standards, 65 salt imports, 80 sampling procedure of present survey, 39-41, 44, 105 Sampo (Dai Nihon Sangyo Ho-

471

koku kat), Association for Service to the State Through Industry, 78, 319 satisfaction job, see job satisfaction social, of worker, 191 of workers and status structure, 191, 203 Savings and Loan associations (U.S.), 263 Scanlon Plan, 321 Schlesinger, A. M.: Political and Social History of the United States (1829-1925), 414-45 Schneider, E . V . : Industrial Sociology, 413. 415 schools system, linked with job status/competitive in Japan, 108, 134, 136-37, 141, 155 juku (private), 217 hanko (clan), 217 modern, in Japan, 217 see also education scientific management movement, 20, 52, 66, 99, 253 Scott, W. G. Human Relations in Management, 413 et al: Personnel Management, 426-27 seamen, 88 seasonal labor construction, in Japan, 108 in Japan, 72 in U.S., 219 see also temporary workers security, job/career, 97, 129, 219, 242 of Japanese workers, 119, 123, 133-35. !37- H«. 155. 353 (see also career commitment) in large-scale firms, 244 (see also regular workers and technological change, 14546 (see also automation)

472

T H E OTHER

WORKER

in U.S., 346, 366-67 and worker perceptions, 137-54 security consciousness, trends towards, 259 segmentation status, see status of work from personal life, see work life seikatsu hokyu kin (livelihood supplementary f u n d ) , 254 seishin-shugi (spiritualism), 418 selection of employees, 14, 53, 99, 212, 287 for supervisory positions, 214 see also recruitment self -actualization, 360 -directedness, 63 -employed workers, 81 -expression, 181-82 -interest, 104, 108 Selvin, Hanan C.: The Effects of Leadership, 423 Selznick, Philip, 161 Strengthening Leadership-Cooptation, 423 sempai (senior), 215, 217 senior (sempai), 215, 2 1 7 as go-between in J a p a n , 336, 338 senior-worker behavior, 215-18, 306 see also older worker seniority -based social order in J a p a n , 300, 356 deference, 196, 356 institutionalized, 193, 197, 2 1 3 privileges, 238 rules in layoffs, 132, 146, 148, 354 in U.S., 199, 215, 229, 348 as status determinant, 192-93, 197, 368-69 versus ability in promotion, 21213. 356 wages related to, 128, 242, 377 see also length of service

separation rates in J a p a n , 135 of supervisor's role, see supervisors service activities/programs, employee, 56, 232-75, 348 contractualized in U.S., 245 in J a p a n , 75, 356-57, 362 mutually agreed, 235-36 unilateral, 235 see also benefits sex differences in response to questionnaire, 109, 1 1 3 , 116, 120, 124, 142, 146, 150-51, 153, 156, 174, 177-78, 182-83, 18788, 210, 213-14, 217-18, 222, 225, 227, 229, 248, 256-57, 261-62, 268, 271-72, 275, 29394, 298-99, 303-304, 307, 309, 329-3°' 330-3 1 . 333-34. 337339. 3 7 2 ' 377-78 distribution in survey sample, 429 as status determinant, 192, 196, 198-99, 223-29, 348, 356, 36869 shakai (society), 10 Shakai-gakubu U N E S C O Chosa Iinkai: " A study of SocioCultural Factors Affecting Productivity," 414 Shakai Shugi Kenkyukai (Association for the Study of Socialism) , 76 shikaku promotions, 214, 242, 376 shikaku-seido (qualification classification system), 199-204, 306, 424 Shinoda, Yujiro (trans.) : Japanese Enterprises, 427 Shinohara, Miyohei: Industrial Structure, 417 Shinsambetsu, 89 shipbuilding industry in J a p a n , 76 Shogunate, 69-70

INDEX

Shokko

Giyukai (Workers' Volunteer Society), 76 Shokuba-toso (on-the-job struggle), 3«4 Shoku-in (managerial personnel), 70-71' 75"76> 7 8 ' M5> 2°4253. 2 § 7 shokuin-koin (staff versus production worker) dichotomy, 165-66 shokusan-kogyo (development of industry and commerce), 69 shop clauses, 333 short-term workers see seasonal; temporary workers showmen, 72 Shunju-sha (ed.) : The Basic Structure of Japanese Economy, 419 sick leave/benefits, 257-62, 267, 273, 274. 357- 378 see also accidents; health insurance Simon, Herbert A., 31-32, 277, 284 Administrative Behavior, 414, 427 Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), 72> 74 Siota, Syobe: An Introduction to Labor Unions, 419 situational -choice format, 37, 44 logics, 25 orientation, 288 /thinking, 428 skills, wage schemes related to, 233 "slow-down," 135 Smerts, Robert W.: European Impressions of the American Worker, 427 social capital, 47 certitude theory, 191 consciousness, 53 criteria in promotion, see promotion

473

for status differentiation, 218 (see also length of service; seniority; status) demands, 208-209, 213 versus technical, see technical evolution, 65 institutions, 60 involvement, 62 legislation, see legislation ownership concept in Japan, 286 (see also private property) problems of industrial civilization, 10 of U.S. urbanization, 50 relations in Japan, 68, 70, 78 at work, 49 responsibility, see responsibility sciences, 35, 42-43 security, programs in U.S., 237, 258 (see also pensions; unemployment) taxes, 238 stratification, see status system and industrial relations systems, 34 theory, 6 social backgrounds/conditions/ context and change in individual relations, xv, 65-66 and decision making, 277 ff in Japan, 84-87 rapidly changing, in Japan, 112 in U.S. pre-Civil War, 46 in U.S. now, 60-63 see also socio-economic Social Security Act (1933), 64 socialist movement in Japan, 7376, 90-91 Socialist Party (Japan) , 89-90 society (shakat), 101 status in U.S., influenced by industry, 198 sociocultural forces in compensation distribution, 232, 236

474

T H E

OTHER

WORKER

socioeconomic changes in Japan, 352 environment, 34 sociology, 35 sociometric preferences as status determinants, 193 Soeda, Hisaichi, 74 "Speech by," 417 Sohyo, (Nihon Rodokumiai Sohyogikai) (General Council of Trade Unions of Japan), 89, 323 solidarity, worker, see labor solidarity Sony Corporation, 103 Soviet Union, see Russia space programs, 65 Spain, 80 specialization, 8, 158, 368 of "bureaucrats," 158 of life in modern society, 194-95, 198 in management, 15 of work, 66, 193 "speed question," 117-20 see also diligence; output restrictions "speed-up," 135 spinning machines, 3 "split-level class," 6 "spreading work," 119-20 see also output restrictions "spring offensives," 89 stabilization of employment and wage income, 132 staff workers in Japan, 103, 134 staff-line organization, 53 Stagner, Ross, et al: "Dual Allegiance to Union and Management," 429 standard work week, 64 see also four-day work week; hours of work standards of performance, 119 standardization of job instructions in Japan, 103

of work methods in Japan, 373 of workers' performance, 102 State-Church, 98 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1964, 415-16 status, 14-17 of gainfully employed, 8i of Japanese worker, static, 86 organizational, of supervisors, 158 of women in industry, see women status aspiration, 196, 202 status compensation, 199 see also wage schemes status criteria/determinants/differential /factors/hierarchy/ stratification/systems, xv, 13, 16, 40, 61, 86, 173, 191, 195, 198, 204-205, 210, 368 carried over to off-job setting, »77.188-89,192-93. 198, 203, 355, 367 function of, 191 informal, 197 in Japan, 70, 376 length of service, 212, 348 male/female, 223-28 nenko-joretsu as, 209 social, 66, 192-93, 209, 218, 348, 368 (see also age; education; seniority, sex) technical versus social, see technical wage-based, 201, 232 versus work requirements in promotion, see promotion worker performance as basis of, 209 worker qualification as basis of, 200 see also hierarchy; work life status enforcement, 192 status inconsistency, 195 status segmentation, 194-95, 198-99, 201-203, 228 status structure and work requirements, 190-231, 313

INDEX status system, formal/institutionalized, 191-92, 195-96 in Japan, 199-205, 228, 230, 356 job/work centered in U.S., 19799, 208, 228, 348 attempted in Japan, 204 off-job recognition of, 192-93 person-centered, 200 reflects technical demands, 192, 205 status unification/reconciliation, 194-96, 198-99, 201-203, 228, 355"5 6 ' 362. 376 steam engine, 3 engine, 3 power in U.S., 47 steel industry, 39-41 in Japan, 76 Stieber, Jack W., 365 see also Kerr Stogdill, Ralph M., 363 et al: Leadership and Role Expectations, 429-30 stratification status, see status strike(s), 19, 50, 65, 73 in Japan, 88 workers' attitudes to, 330-33, 350, 359 see also Miike; Tomakomai "structuring" worker into group, 191, 208 subcontracting(-ors) in Japan, 58, 75, 84, 133-34. H9 in U.S., 58 subcultures, industrial and agricultural, 235 subordination, 96 of personal freedom to work, 113-17, 184 of workers to organizational controls, 187, 344-45' 352. 355. 360, 361 see also loyalty subsistence/living wages, 204, 233, 235. 237' 240. 242

475

suburbia, industrial, 6 suffrage of women in Japanese public elections, 224 Sumiya, Mikio: A History of Japanese Labor Movement, 417 summer student workers in U.S., 219 see also seasonal; temporary workers supervision, 97 consultative, see supervisors, role overlap democratic, 355 employee-centered, 286 functional, 166 supervisors, xv, 15-16, 40, 157-89 autonomy of, 183-87 dual role of, 158-61 first-line/foremen, 15, 158, 163, 181-82, 187, 278-79, 291, 350 as go-between in marriage, 172-73 involvement, see below in Japan, 103, 213-14, 358 promotion to, 304-13 by merit-seniority, 229 role overlap, see below status extends to off-job situations, 174, 367 (see also status criteria) training of, 158, 163 women as, 223-29, 231 supervisors and role overlap/sharing/consultative/versus role séparation/unilateral role, 159-61, 198 supervisors' involvement with workers' off-job life extended/limited, 159-78, 186-89, 354-55. 3 6 2. 3 6 7 in Japan, 375 in U.S., 162-65, 239, 347, 361, 367 in Japan, 168-70, 178-87, 355, 358, 368, 375 in U.S., 163-65, 188, 347, 367

476

T H E OTHER

WORKER

see also decision making; participation supervisor-worker relations, 157-89, 347,. 354-55, 367. 375 supervisory allowances in Japan, 241 supervisory capability equated with length of experience, 213 Supreme Commander, Allied Powers (SCAP), 88 Supreme Court (Japan) 1950 decision, 179 surplus of labor and reduction of workforce, 119, 145 (see also lay-off) surveillance, 186 Survey of Current Business, 415 survivors' insurance, 64-65 in Japan, 85 see also dependents Sutton, F. X., S. E. Harris, C. Kayser, and J. Tobin: The American Business Creed, 415 Suzuki, Ichizo, and H. Yamazaki: An Analysis of the Study of Socio-Cultural Factors in Industry, 423

Taft-Hartley Law (Labor-Management Relations Act) (1947), 64 Taguchi, Masanori: The Secrets of the S-Company, 420 "Taisho democracy," 75 see also democracy Taiwan, 72, 79 Takezawa, Shin-ichi "Generation Gaps Among Industrial Workers," 429 "Human Relations in Japanese Industry," 419, 427 The Management of Men, 42122, 428 see also Ushikubo

Tannenbaum, Robert, 276 "Managerial Decision-making," 427 tanshin-gata (single workers), 71 tariff(s) autonomy in Japan, 70, 73 decisions, 65 protective, in U.S., 48 taxation of employers with high labor turnover, 14-15, 346 social security, 238 policy, 65 on worker's earnings, 64 (see also income tax) Taylor, Frederick, W., 20, 52, 237 technical demands as criteria for worker evaluation, 206 of organization, 191-92 versus social status determinants, l92_94> 19 6 . 199. 2°i> 205. 208, 213, 219, 223, 227-28, 33°. 348, 355' 362, 368, 376 as status determinants in U.S., 197. »99 technical hierarchy, 199 technical orientation in wage schemes, 233 technical work requirements, see technical demands technological growth/change, 3, 8, 368 and Japanese employment, 137, »45 and personnel authority, 213-14 as reason for discharge of workers, 146 in U.S. pre-Civil War, 47 workers' attitude to, 104, 120-26, H4. 344-45. 353. 361 technology in Japan (1868-1910), 70 in Japan, impact of, 103 in U.S., 58, 66, 99 television, 5

INDEX

temporary workers, 40, 128, 135 in Japan, 134, 149 rinji-ko, 75, 219 status, 218-23, 356, 376 and wage disparity, 218-23, 2293 1 - 35 6 see also seasonal tenant labor, 72 tension(s) over formal performance rating, 230, 300, 303, 313 over higher income needs of younger workers, 251 over labor-management relations in Japan, 328 over nenko-joretsu, 274-75 over recreational facilities in Japan, 272 between subgroups, 364 in U.S., 274, 346-47. 37° zones of, 212, 228-29, 343, 3 6 3"79 see also gaps; generation gap tenure of employment in Japan, lifetime, see career commitment tertiary industries, 49 textile industry, 39 in Japan, 73, 244, 263 female workers in, 417 time and motion studies, 197 title as symbol of promotion, 212, 215 see also vice-president Tobin, J., see Sutton Toda, Kaiichi, 184 Japanese Society, 423 tokubetsu ni shihar aw areta kyuyo (special payment), 254 Tokugawa feudal era (1600-1867), 69, 71 Tomakomai Strike of Oji Paper Company, 427 tool allowances in Japan, 241 Toray Corporation, 101 torishimariyaku (member of board of directors), 287

477

total-person commitment, 71 totalitarian culture, 97 totalitarianism, 100 trade, 49, 56 barriers, 369 expansion of, 3 foreign, of Japan, 71 unions, see labor unions Trade Union Congress, 317 tradesman, status of, 191 tradition, 173 influence of, in industrial relations in Japan, 23, 80 in Japanese industry, 201, 351 rebellion against, in Japan, 79, 35 1 in U.S., 163, 181, 186, 188, 228 traditional local industries in Japan, 72 traditionalism, 21-22 in Japan, 210 "trained incapacity" of scientists, 42 training community, of kumi (youth company), 217 of employees, 14, 53, 99 after automation, 121, 367 and merit rating, 299 of supervisors in U.S., 163 Training-Within-Industry, ( T W I ) programs, 87 transfers, 18, 197, 276, 295, 299, 3 1 0 ' 349 transportation 7, 49, 56 allowances in Japan, 274 steam power in, 47 travel jet, 5 treaties, commercial (1858), 69, 73 tuberculosis, 258 turnover, 128 labor, and compensation, 17 Tsuchiya, Takao Conditions of Workmen, 416 Economic History of Japan, 417

478

T H E OTHER

WORKER

Tsuda, Masumi: "A Comparison of Collective Bargaining in Japan and the United States," 429 tuberculosis, 258 Turner, F. J.: The Frontier in American History, 415 turnover, 128 labor, and compensation, 17 in Japan, 70, 75, 79 and longevity reward, 193 in U.S., 131-32, 154 rate of business, 60 Ujihara, Shojiro, 136, 189 " T h e Characteristics of Largefactory Workers in Our Country," 422-24 see also Okochi ultraconservatism, 22 ultranationalism, 87 unemployment after automation, 144 benefits, 248 compensation, 128, 132 taxes, 367 insurance, 64-66 in Japan, 88, 243 in Japan, 145 and mobility of labor, 128 ratio, 82 in U.S., 132, 154

U.S. Occupation of Japan, 88, 224 United Steelworkers, 58 universalism, 43 upward communication, see labor unions as communication media delegation, see delegation urban employment in U.S. pre-Civil War, 47 urbanization, 50, 53 in Japan, 172 in U.S., 60, 66 162, 239 Ushikubo, Hiroshi: "Changing Patterns in Employee Services," 427 with S. Takezawa, et al: Management of the Youth, 430 vacations, paid, 238, 243 value(s) American, cultural, 110, 326 of American management, 62 of American middle class, 63 coexistence of work and personal,

(1962), 56 see also labor surplus "unfair labor practice," 64 unions/unionism, see labor unions /unionism United Auto Workers, 58, 252, 367 United Mine Workers, 51 United Nations, 12 United States-Japan Treaty (1858),

373 cultural, 65 denied in Japan, 351 of family and workplace, 60 hard work as basic, 117 individualistic, in Japan, 100 managers' traditional, 212 orientation, xiv systems of industrial authority, 54 workers' modern, 212 variable cost labor as, 144 Venezuela, 80 vertical division of work, 283 Veterans' Administration (U.S.), 263 vice-president as status title, 192,

69 U.S. Department of Commerce, 426 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 415, 421-22

195 village, Japanese, 217 violence in labor protest, 316 Viteles, Morris S.: Motivation and Morale in Industry, 420

INDEX

Vroom, Victor H., 165 Work and Motivation,

479

in Japanese industries, 242 420, 423

job-based, see work-centered wage system need-based, see need-based

wage(s), 17, 97 control by Japanese government, 89, 102 in Japan, 84

seniority-based, see seniority wartime, in Japan, 241 wage-work equation, 237 W a g n e r A c t (National L a b o r Relations Act)

gaps, 91

(1935), 61, 64

low, 74, 88

Wakimura, Y., see Arisawa

rate, 202-203

war

in small firms, 136 minimum, 10, 64-65, 153, 242 reduction in business decline, 148-49, 153, 241

industries in Japan, 244 Japanese, 77 wars Korean, 88, 137

as spiral measure, 17

in Manchuria, 72

workers' dissatisfaction with, 334-

Sino-Japanese (1894-1895), 72,

39 wage administration, 219, 242, 252 in Japan, 78, 253 wage arbitration in Japan, 89 wage comparisons, international, 240 wage/income differentials/disparity/discrimination, 198, 241 family allowance as, 247 in Japan, 80, 89, 102, 204, 333 by management evaluation, 241 and temporary/regular status difference, 218-23, 237 in U.S., 59 and work experience, 218-23, 237 wage increases in Japan, 108, 136, 200, 202-203, 208 length-of-service, 136, 212 decision m a k i n g on, 289-94, 349, 378 wage practices/system/theory, 23334, 240, 248 based o n personal rates, 248 contractual, 246 contribution-based, see contribution ideal, 242

74 see also W o r l d W a r I and II wartime need-based wage theory, 241, 247 Washington, 51 w e b of rules, 50, 314 Weber, M a x , 158 welfare, 5, 369 enterprise, 85, 91 concept, 418 legislation in Japan, 88 pensions in Japan, 243 programs in Japan, 75, 84 in U.S. pre-ig30, 237, 273 responsibilities in Japan, 83 social and personal in U.S., 99 values, 22 W e l f a r e Pension Insurance (Japan), 258 Western colonialism, 70 Western Electric Company, 53-54 Westernization of Japanese youth, 355- 357 see also civilization, Westernstyle wheat productivity in Japan, 80 white-collar workers, 56, 59, 87 in Japan, 173, 354

480

T H E OTHER

WORKER

resist union organization, 37» in U.S., 99 Whitehill, Arthur M „ Jr. "Cultural Values and Attraction to Groups," 421 Personnel Relations, 413, 435 Whyte, William F., 165 (ed.) Industry and Society, 424 Men at Work, 423 Organization Man, 99, 186, 197 Williams, Robin M., 212 "Values and Modern Education in the United States," 425 women workers clerical, in Japan, 134 contractual, temporal/pragmatic approach to work, 109, 113, 142, 153, 183, 188, 214, 218, 256, 261, 275, 303, 329, 372 less identified with work life in U.S., 113 in labor force in U.S., 62 in light industries/factories in Japan, 70, 73 not motivated to participate in decisions, 293, 303 person-centered, in U.S., 109 production, in Japan, 134 proportion of Japanese wageearners, 87, 1x3, 224 less ready to accept rules, 116 status of, in industry, 223-28 in Japan, 85, 116, 120, 142, 156, 224, 376 in U.S., 116 as supervisors, 223-29, 231 wool imported, 80 work -centered, see below environment, 14 life, see below load adjustments, 135 organization/distribution, 201-202 preference, 252 relief programs, 132

requirements, status structure and, see status; technical -wage equation, 376-77 work-centered/oriented evaluations/comparisons, see evaluations industrial relations, in Japan, 204 in U.S., 197-99, 23 6 industrial society in U.S., 346 labor market growing in Japan, 223 needs, 208 personnel techniques in U.S., 204 status system/criteria, see status system wage system, 242, 248, 251, 377 in U.S., 221, 237 work life, degree of separation from home life, 60, 80, n o , 112, 126, 162, 170, 198, 271, 273, 345. 347-48, 352. 354-55. 3 6l > 366 in questionnaire, 110, 126 priority of, in Japan, 112, 126, 202 see also involvement worker commitment, see employment commitment; loyalty -initiated stress, 138-42 -management committees, 33 (see also labor management) perceptions, see below profiles in U.S., 344-51 roles, see below unions, see labor unions worker perception, ix, xv, 31 ff, 43 of company's economic inducement, 245-75 differences in, xiv five areas of, 103 ff gaps in, xiv of job security and management role, 137-53 questionnaire, xiii, 35-44 of supervisors' roles, 160-89

INDEX

worker roles, 24, 31 as links, 31, 34, 44 as objects of management, 31-33, 43 as participants, 31, 33-34, 44 working class in Japan, 72, 84, 88 working conditions, 52, 97 in Japan, 70-72, 74 Workmen's Compensation Insurance Law (Japan) (1947), 258 workplace democratization in, 87 rules of, 56-57 and social institutions, 60 World War I, 53, 73, 75-76, 133, 244, 247, 253, 357 World W a r II, 26, 43, 51, 71-72, 7779, 82, 84, 100, 137, 163, 168, 194, 203, 223, 238, 241, 244, 247, 253, 263, 318-19, 322, 357 influence of, on Japan's industrial relations, 351 yakuzukiko (production workers in official posts), 166 Yamada, Yuzo: The Growth and Patterns of Economy, 422 Yamamoto, Noboru: "Problems in Studies of Social Stratification," 420

481

Yamazaki, Goro: A History of Japanese Labor Movement, 417 Yamazaki, Hitoshi, see Suzuki Yano, Michio: A Collection of Practices for Labor-Capital Harmony in the West, 417 Yoder, Dale, 252 Personnel Management and Industrial Relations, 426 Yokoyama, Gennosuke: The Lower Classes of Japan, 416 youth in Japan resist organizational goals, 373 in Japanese employment structure, 87 and Japanese wage system, 1 SÖST- 377 see also age

zaibatsu, big financial combines, 71, 75 Zaleznik, A., i g i , 197 with C. R . Christensen and F. J. Roethlisberger: The Motivation, Productivity, and Satisfaction of Workers, 424 Zander, Alvin, see Cartwright Zollitsch, Herbert G., see Langsner zone of indifference, 163-64