Rethinking the Paternalist Paradigm in Japanese IndustriM Management
Rethinking the Paternalist Paradigm in Japanese IndustriM Management
复制标题
反思日本产业管理中的家长式范式
DOI：
10.2307/2082612
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
6.8
通讯作者：
W. D. Kinzley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Tsutsui;W. D. Kinzley
太平洋两岸的观察家长期以来都认为家长作风是日本工业管理的一个显着特征。雇主提供福利设施、阐明家族企业意识形态、使用强调工作保障和培养工人忠诚度的人事政策等家长式做法，都被视为日本独特的工业劳动力管理方法的标志。主流学术和新闻报道几乎无一例外地认为，这种家长主义倾向是日本文化遗产的自然产物，反映了传统价值观对现代工业的客观要求的独特适应。此外，人们普遍认为，家长式作风在二战前后构成了日本管理实践的核心，而由于家长式作风模式的文化吸引力，替代性的劳动管理范式在日本陷入困境。日本最有影响力的家长式作风分析家羽泽间宏认为，日本战前的实业家“创造性地”利用了传统的“群体主义、依赖感和对和谐的高度重视”，创建了日本独有的企业福利制度。 Hazama 总结道，由于具有如此深厚的本土根源，家长式作风在日本的工业车间中占据了主导地位，而其他方法，尤其是弗雷德里克·泰勒的科学管理，已被证明无法渗透到日本工业中[Hazama，1979，第 17 页]。 104；狭间，1969；狭间，1978]。尽管西方学术界普遍认可这些观点，但近年来，一些历史学家开始质疑关于战前日本家长式作风的普遍看法。例如，安德鲁·戈登（Andrew Gordon）认为，家长主义言论对于动摇工人情绪是无效的，而企业福利主义只是日本工业劳动力管理战略武器库中的一种手段[Gordon，1985；戈登，1989]。谢尔登·加隆 (Sheldon Garon) 和威廉·迪恩·金兹利 (William Dean Kinzley) 也同样质疑日本家长式作风的单一性，并指出日本管理者受外国模式影响的程度 [Garon, 1987;金兹利，1991]。不少历史学家曾
Observers on both sides of the Pacific have long identified paternalism as a distinguishing characteristic of industrial management inJapan. Paternalistic practices the provision of welfare facilities by employers, the articulation of familial corporate ideologies, the use of personnel policies which emphasize job security and foster worker loyalty have been seen as the hallmarks of a distinctively Japanese approach to managing industrial labor. Both mainstream scholarship and journalistic accounts have almost invariably assumed that this paterealistic proclivity was a natural outgrowth of Japan's cultural heritage, reflecting a unique accommodation f traditional values to the impersonal dictates of modern industry. Moreover, it has generally been supposed that paternalism formed the core of Japanese management practice both before and after World War II, and that alternate paradigms of labor management floundered in Japan because of the culturally-conditioned appeal of the paterealistic model. According to Hazama Hiroshi, the most influential analyst of Japanese paternalism, Japan's prewar industrialists made "creative" use of tradition "groupism, feelings of dependency, and a high regard for harmony" in the creation of a singularly Japanese corporate welfare system. With such deep indigenous roots, Hazama concludes, paternalism has reigned supreme in Japan's industrial workshops while other approaches notably Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management have proven unable to penetrate Japanese industry [Hazama, 1979, p. 104; Hazama, 1969; Hazama, 1978]. Although Western scholarship has generally endorsed these views, in recent years some historians have begun to question the received wisdom about paternalism in prewar Japan. Andrew Gordon, for example, has suggested that paterealistic rhetoric was ineffective in swaying worker sentiment and that corporate welfarism was only one device in Japanese industry's arsenal of labor management strategies [Gordon, 1985; Gordon, 1989]. Sheldon Garon and William Dean Kinzley have similarly questioned the monolithic nature of Japanese paternalism and noted the extent to which Japanese managers were influenced by foreign models [Garon, 1987; Kinzley, 1991]. A number of historians have