A Survey of Literature on Japanese Leadership
Simon Cozens
September 24, 2009
Students of Japanese leadership will be aware that, as Fukushige and Spicer (2007) note, ‘whilst a great deal of literature
has investigated Japanese management practises, research on leadership in Japan has been relatively sparse’. This brief
paper aims to review the available literature and research on leadership practises and theory in Japan. We summarize the
existing material broken down into sociological interpretations of the exercise of leadership in Japan, leadership theories
for evaluating the performance of Japanese leaders, and empirical studies testing hypotheses of Japanese leadership.
1
Sociological investigation
First we wish to consider the sociological understandings of leadership; that is, the nature of leadership expressed in Japan
as distinct from how to measure or improve it, together with cultural considerations which may have given rise to particular
dynamics of leadership.
1.1
Nakane
Despite its many flaws, the definitive work on Japanese social intercourse still remains Nakane (1972), which posits that
members of a Japanese group have, on the whole, no independent relationship with each other but are all ‘rooted’ in their
vertical relationship with their oya-bun. The consequence of such a ‘rooting’ is that the leader is not an external influence
upon their group, but is an inseparable part of it. Indeed, the leader is expected to merge their identity with that of the
group (p. 72) and cannot avoid but develop emotional and personal ties to their ko-bun subordinates, particularly over an
immediate small group.
Hence when Nakane declares that ‘Japanese soil cannot grow a charismatic leader,’ (p. 74) she is not, as some have
suggested, making a negative statement, but a positive one. She is essentially stipulating that within a culture oriented
around personal and emotional ties, a dominating leader is undesirable. The effect of charisma is limited to the immediate
personal relations, rather than influence directed towards the organisation at large.
1.2
Hirokawa
Hirokawa (1982) presents the classical (and therefore now considerably outdated) understanding of Japanese corporate
social organisation from the point of view of internal communication pathways.
He emphasises four components of Japanese management—internal harmony, bottom-up decision making, availability
of managers and the permanent employment system—and contends that these properties foster free and efficient exchange
of information within the organisation.
In terms of internal harmony, the collectivist spirit, engendered by a sense of duty to the organisation, is supposed to
mitigate against feelings of individual achievement and success, and to allow a shared understanding and responsibility to
permeate throughout a work group. Hirokawa also describes the ringi and QC-circle systems of bottom-up decision making,
noting how they provide for discussion, communication and shared understanding before proposals become decisions.
Next, Hirokawa considers both the physical and social availability of managers to their subordinates, developing friendship groups to create a web of trust within the organisation, and creating relationships which extend their influence far
beyond matters concerning the workplace. The final aspect, the permanent employment system implies that a cohort of
1
workers progress together throughout their working life, meaning that the relationships built there are primary relationships, as close as family, for the workers. (While this system is now becoming less prevalent, the idea of Japanese company
as surrogate family is still relevant as a strong cultural concept.)
Hirokawa weaves all of these factors into a safety net which allows for honest and clear communication, as opposed to
Western organisations, where mistrust and worry about speaking out of turn serves to inhibit necessary communication.
Further study would be recommended to divide ideology from practise!
1.3
Taka and Foglia
In a similar vein to Hirokawa’s paper, Taka and Foglia (1994) contrasts idealized Japanese organisations and Western organisations, and considers why Japanese organisations suffer less from ethical problems. They highlight three spiritual factors
key to Japanese leadership style:
(1) emphasis on self-realization, (2) appreciation of diverse human abilities, and (3) trust in others.
According to Taka and Foglia, Japanese society is permeated by two normative environments: the transcendent environment which “assumes that all persons and things transcend day to day existence by being linked to a higher force”, which
provides self-actualization for the whole society, and a similar normative environment which provides self-actualization for
societal groups. The company is seen as one such societal group with its own normative environment.
Because of the transcendent normative environment, and
[b]ecause all things have this spiritual implication, Japanese people work hard and not only try to make the
best use of their own time and talents, thereby unifying themselves with the “great life force” of the universe,
but also strive for optimal use of all relevant factors. Capital, equipment, information, workspace, as well as
workers, should all be utilized in the best manner possible.
(Consider also Hirokawa’s idea above that individuals are cultured to subjugate themselves to the interests of the corporate
group.)
Similarly because everyone is connected in a transcendent manner, earnest work is appreciated regardless of its nature;
therefore, the leader ideal must respect a diverse range of abilities and activities, and be one ‘who permits or encourages
others to proceed to the life force through their own work.’ Appreciating the role and importance of each person’s speciality
leads to an appreciation of their understanding for the challenges of their work, and hence through QC circles and the like,
a belief that the worker knows best how to improve and refine the working experience: a fundamentally positive view of
the worker, which contrasts with the prevalent management views of workforce in the US.
Flowing from this comes a third aspect, the fundamental trust a leader expresses in his subordinates. Trusting others
is an opportunity for the leader to earn trust themselves, which is required for group cohesion and solidarity.
Working from these characterisations of Japanese Leadership Style (JLS), Taka and Foglia discuss why Japanese organisations suffer less ethical issues than their US counterparts, and examine organisational structures for change and
improvement, and show how Japanese long-term thinking affects inter-organisational negotiations.
2
2.1
Leadership theories
Performance-maintenance theory
The primary Japanese-born theory of leadership is expressed by Misumi (1995). Misumi carried out wide-scale research
on over 5,000 Japanese workers and managers, and analysed the results according to two metrics: Performance (or ‘P’),
and Maintenance (‘M’). Performance is concerned with the achievement of goals, particularly goals relevant to the work
group; Maintenance is concerned with the cohesion of the work group. The original paper which proposed the theory
((Misumi, 1964)) explains the distinction as follows:
Assuming three types of leadership, P, M, and PM, we experimentally analyzed their relationship with the
productivity of the group. P-type corresponds to conventional “autocratic” or “work-centered” type. Mtype corresponds to “democratic” or “human-relation-centered” type, and PM-type is both work and human
2
relation centered. The results obtained at a governmental training institution showed that PM type leadership
was most effective in terms of both productivity and group moral. Another study conducted with eight groups
of coal mine workers confirmed this finding.
While this appears superficially similar to the transactional-transformational measures of leadership, there are two major
distinctions: the first is that transformational-transactional is seen as a continuum scale, whereas P and M factors reinforce
each other; the second is the emphasis on group over individual. Leaders were categorised into four quadrants: PM, highfunctioning leaders, scored highly on both scales; Pm leaders emphasis performance, goal completion and achievement;
pM leaders are skilled at social cohesion but are not so developed in requiring performance; pm leaders adopt a lassez-faire
approach.
Ideal leaders were found to combine P and M functions. Misumi and Peterson (1985) demonstrated that leaders
operating in both P and M functions gave superior job satisfaction and performance to those operating out of one of the
two factors alone.
Several papers written in Japanese take the performance-maintenance theory as their basis. Seki, Yoshida, Kinjo, Misumi, Misumi, Hiraki, Sakurai, Shinohara and Sintani (1998) studied correlations between personality types and leadership
behaviour: using the YG personality test and PM metrics to analyse a group of 458 leaders from different professions;
some of these leaders then underwent leadership training appropriate to their PM style. While calmness and assertiveness
were correlating traits for all leaders, no clear correlation was found between leadership style and personality traits, and no
specific personality traits could be linked to an affinity for leadership development. (On the other hand, Banzai (1989) does
show correlation between follower’s personality traits and leaders’ PM style.)
Seki, Takaoka, Misumi and Misumi (1992) was a five-year research programme which applied annual leadership development training courses to shop owners and staff in the Nagoya area. Through a programme of counselling, feedback, case
studies and mutual evaluation, the team saw a distinct increase in PM leadership, and corresponding increases in morale,
sales and follower satisfaction.
2.2
PM’s generality
Smith, Misumi, Tayeb, Peterson et al. (1989) took the PM metrics and analyzed their cross-cultural generality, using a survey
of 1117 workers in Britain, the US, Hong Kong and Japan. They found that while the measures of leadership style clustered
universally around the performance and maintenance axes, showing the PM analysis is generally applicable, the individual
behaviours which made up the analysis could not be independently investigated in a generally applicable cross-cultural
manner. In essence, the study shows that while leaders in all cultures are at their best when achieving high metrics for
both P and M behaviours, thus proving the generality of Misumi’s categorizations, leaders also need to learn the locally
understood implications of their behaviours.
3
3.1
Empirical Studies
Fukushige and Spicer
Fukushige and Spicer (2007) begins by applying Bass and Avolio’s ‘full-range leadership model’ to Japan, testing the hypothesis that the preference for transformational over transactional leaders is universal. Through an admittedly small-scale series
of interviews with Japanese followers, they discovered that idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behaviours,
and inspirational motivation, theoretically the most effective leadership styles under Bass and Avolio’s model, received little
endorsement as an ideal style. Intellectual stimulation was universally welcomed, while individualized consideration and
contingent reward were broadly supported, despite the latter being a transactional style.
Next, a free-form questionnaire survey was classified into the Bass-Avolio categories, showing a strong preference
for individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation and contingent reward, in that order, and almost no support for
other styles; a further direct questionnaire measuring support for each Bass-Avolio category independently showed similar
results, with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration scoring the highest preferences. Contingent reward
was preferred by 60% of respondents, many of whom suggested that its simplicity was its strength. Inspirational motivation
was considered over-confident and over-positive, particularly in the uncertain economic climate of recession, which called
for more cautious, risk-aware leadership.
3
The survey next turned to considering whether the Japanese and Western cultures had converged due to globalization,
and to what extent this would change patterns of work. A slim majority saw convergence, with Western-style meritocracy
replacing Japanese dependence relations in the workplace. 60% saw a shift from collectivism to individualism, and 70%
saw a shift from seniority to meritocracy.
The next area of study was the respondents perceptions of actual and preferred styles of leadership in areas beyond
the Bass-Avolio scale. Further areas mentioned by respondents as actual styles were the directive style, participative style,
the significance of social activities after work, and the management of required overtime hours. Notable areas in the
preferred styles were protective leadership, network leadership and gender equality—these were categorized as Japanese
culture-specific preferences. In the area of network leadership, the respondents were looking for leaders who would use
their network of influences to advance the careers of their subordinates.
When given a free-form questionnaire on actual leadership styles, participative and consultative leadership was observed
by a majority of respondents. By participative, the respondents meant leadership which observes carefully the subordinates
activities and provides reactive advice; consultative leadership set goals and asked for ideas and feedback to enable their
actualisation. Directive and authoritarian leadership were the next two commonly observed styles, followed by protective,
bargaining, laissez-faire, supportive, punctual and egocentric.
Further questions determined that leaders were showing more preference for competence and performance than more
traditional factors such as seniority or gender. Almost all respondents showed a preference for protective and network
styles of leadership. Most respondents believed that social activities with their leaders (so called ‘after-five’) were beneficial
but relatively infrequent.
A matrix of preferred leadership properties was inferred from free-form responses, with a descending order of preference for ‘liberalism’, (fairness and impartiality, as distinct from ‘conservative’ values) trustworthiness, punctuality, participation, use of network ties, supportiveness, directive leadership, protection, ‘after-five’ activities and achievement-oriented
leadership as leadership qualities.
Many of these values, particularly liberalism, trust, punctuality, use of network ties, protection and ‘after-five’ styles,
are not considered by American leadership theories and thus should form part of an integrated theory of Japanese leadership. Though small-scale, Fukushige and Spicer’s (2007) study reveals important new considerations for theorising about
leadership in Japan.
3.2
Yoshioka
A similar attempt to apply American leadership theories to Japanese society is provided by Yoshioka (2006). This study
tests Japanese subordinates’ preferences against the model suggested by Hersey and Blanchard (Situational Leadership).
Situational Leadership theory provides correspondences between the readiness of subordinates and the proposed idealized behaviour of the leader. As subordinates mature, the leader should provide greater independence and flexibility, in
accordance with the following four phases:
•
•
•
•
Telling (S1): Provide specific instructions and closely supervise performance.
Selling (S2): Explain your decisions and provide opportunity for clarification.
Participating (S3): Share ideas and facilitate in making decisions.
Delegating (S4): Turn over responsibility for decisions and implementation.
Against this model, Yoshioka tests four hypotheses:
1. The combination of the leader’s perceived leadership style and a follower’s readiness level affects the
follower’s outcomes in Japan.
2. The outcomes of the follower whose leader’s style matches that recommended by the Situational Leadership model will be higher than the others.
3. A person working with a leader whose style matches one’s desired leadership has higher satisfaction than
a person who is not.
4. The leadership style that a follower desires one’s leader to have differs according to one’s readiness level.
And the most preferable leadership style at each readiness level in Japan shifts generally toward more
relationship and more task behaviors than the Situational Leadership model holds.
4
Building on previous studies by Hayashi and Matsubara (1998) and Takahara and Yamashita (2004), Yoshioka emailed
a questionnaire to two hundred workers in a Tokyo utilities company, with 130 respondents. The studies findings were that
1. Followers’ job satisfaction was related to their readiness level alone.
2. Satisfaction with supervisor was related to the combination of their leader’s leadership style and their
readiness level.
3. The combinations of leadership style and readiness level where people felt high satisfaction with their
supervisor were different from what the Situational Leadership model suggests.
4. When working with the leader who behaved as they felt that they needed, people felt higher satisfaction
than when they were not working with such a leader, as the principles of the Situational Leadership
model hold.
5. The leadership style which Japanese people wanted their leader to exhibit was both higher relationship
behavior and higher task behavior than the Situational Leadership model suggested.
Yoshioka then goes on to modify the Situational Leadership model for use in Japan, by increasing both the relationship
and task behaviour metrics of leadership behaviour; in short, the model was restricted to two classifications rather than the
original four, with lower-readiness subordinates best satisfied with the S2 (Selling) style and higher-readiness subordinates
responding best to the S3 (Participating) style. Telling and Delegating were contraindicated.
4
Summary
While the academic literature on modes, methods and metrics of Japanese leadership remains relatively sparse, particularly
when compared to understanding on Japanese organisation, this survey has attempted to sketch out current thinking and
trends in this area, and to provide references for the researcher to enable further investigation.
References
Banzai, T. (1989). Leadership effects as a function of follower’s personality characteristics, The Japanese Journal of Educational
Psychology 37: 107–116.
Bass, B. and Yokochi, N. (1991). Charisma among senior executives and the special case of Japanese CEOs, Consulting
Psychology Bulletin 1: 31–38.
Bolon, D. S. and Crain, C. R. (1985). Decision sequence: A recurring theme in comparing american and japanese management, meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.
Fukushige, A. and Spicer, D. (2007). Leadership preferences in Japan: an exploratory study, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 28(6): 508–530.
Hayashi, F. and Matsubara, T. (1998). The influence of subordinate readiness on leadership effectiveness, The Japanese Journal
of Administrative Science 12(2): 103–112.
Hayashi, S. and Baldwin, F. (1988). Culture and management in Japan, Univ of Tokyo Pr.
Hirokawa, R. (1982). Improving intra-organizational communication: A lesson from Japanese management, Communication
Quarterly 30(1): 35–40.
Lee, J., Roehl, T. and Choe, S. (2000). What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct across Borders? Growth,
Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms., Journal of International Business Studies 31(4).
Lee, S. and Schwendiman, G. (1982). Japanese management: cultural and environmental considerations, Praeger Publishers.
5
Misumi, J. (1964). The structure and function of leadership in education and industry : Proposed study, The Annual report
of educational psychology in Japan 4: 83–106, 131.
URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110001896871/en/
Misumi, J. (1995). The development in Japan of the Performance-Maintenance (PM) theory of leadership, Journal of Social
Issues 51: 213–228.
Misumi, J. and Peterson, M. (1985). The performance-maintenance (PM) theory of leadership: Review of a Japanese
research program, Administrative Science Quarterly pp. 198–223.
Nakane, C. (1972). Japanese society, Univ of California Press.
O’Connell, M., Lord, R. and O’Connell, M. (1990). Differences in Japanese and American leadership prototypes: Implications for cross-cultural training, meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.
Peterson, M., Smith, P. and Peng, T. (1995). Japanese and American supervisors of a US workforce: an intercultural
analysis of behavior meanings, Navigating the Japanese market: business and socio-economic perspectives, IC2 Institute, Austin,
TX, pp. 229–249.
Seki, F., Takaoka, S., Misumi, J. and Misumi, E. (1992). An empirical study of leadership development on the basis of pm
leadership theory, Memoirs of Kyushu University School of Health Sciences 19: 37–40.
URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000055167/en/
Seki, F., Yoshida, M., Kinjo, A., Misumi, J., Misumi, E., Hiraki, T., Sakurai, Y., Shinohara, S. and Sintani, T. (1998). An
empirical study on the relation between leadership and personality traits, Memoirs of Kyushu University School of Health
Sciences 25: 1–9.
URL: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000055212/en/
Smith, P., Misumi, J., Tayeb, M., Peterson, M. et al. (1989). On the generality of leadership style measures across cultures,
Journal of Occupational Psychology 62(2): 97–109.
Taka, I. and Foglia, W. (1994). Ethical aspects of “Japanese leadership style”, Journal of Business Ethics 13(2): 135–148.
Takahara, R. and Yamashita, M. (2004). 質問紙法による 日本の産業場面 における 状況対応的 リーダーシップモデル
の研究, Japanese Journal of Interpersonal and Social Psychology (4): 41–29.
Wu, M.-Y. (2006). Compare participative leadership theories in three cultures, China Media Research 2(3): 19–30.
Yokochi-Bryce, N. (1989). Leadership styles of Japanese business executives and managers: Transformational and transactional. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Yoshioka, R. (2006). An empirical test of the Situational Leadership® model in Japan, Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at
Arlington.
6