JAPANESE TERTIARY EDUCATION
(Matsumoto 1984), and Communicating with the Japanese (Neustupny 1987)
introduce Japanese concepts such as haragei (literally, “the art of the belly” or
“belly performance,” indicating the ability to communicate in silence) or amae
(dependency) as keys to understanding Japanese communication style.
With the postwar economic success of Japan, the business world has been
particularly enamored with Japanese negotiating and management, often discussing
styles of communication and thought. Three terms that have been much
discussed—nemawashi, kaizen and hansei—are distinctive social mechanisms
through which the professoriate addresses the challenge of university reform.
Considering the import that most Japan experts in crosscultural business
communications give to the categories of nemawashi, kaizen and hansei, there has
been a lack of concomitant critical microanalysis. It is assumed that these concepts
operate universally in Japanese interactions and are culturally specific, unique to
Japan. I feel there is certainly room for ethnomethodological analysis of the
language surrounding these indigenous categories, however.
Nemawashi
The first of these “mechanisms” is nemawashi, which means literally “to bind the
roots of a tree before its transplantation” and is a term used often in business and
institutional situations in Japan to refer to the common practice of explanation and
negotiation on an unofficial level beforehand, to smooth the acceptance of an idea
among decision makers in an official meeting context. Nemawashi, slightly
different but similar to the concept of “spadework” important to American and
European businesspeople, is a concept that is said to derive from the propensity for
what is described as “consensus,” “conflict-avoidance” or “harmony” (often coined
as wa in the vernacular) in Japanese organizations (Rohlen 1973, 1974). This
normative depiction of Japan, and especially Japanese organizations, as
“harmonious” has been questioned, following what Matsunaga (2000a) and
Wright (1994) have pointed out as a trend in the anthropological literature on
organizations generally, from earlier models of consensus (the Human Relations
school) to more recent models of conflict (Manchester School studies). Certainly I
would not describe the social environment at EUC as especially “harmonious,”
though admittedly there are certain elements of these stereotypical Japanese
“virtues” evident in meeting contexts.
In one of the earlier ethnographies of a Japanese organization, in this case a
bank, Rohlen described how most section chiefs submit problems to the entire
group (though they have the authority to make all decisions)—to either the rule of
consensus or, after discussion, to decide themselves. “Group processes require
considerable time, and to push for an early consensus or to fail to involve everyone
can lead to resentment and opposition” (Rohlen 1974, p. 107). Part of this process
is “spadework,” facilitating consensus and inclusion, since objections or new ideas
offered by others in the group may be discovered in advance. Of course sounding
out the other side before making decisions, or even proposals, lends certain
37
CHAPTER 1
“vagueness to the early stages of Japanese negotiating activity that often smacks of
furtiveness to foreigners” (March 1990, p. 31). So, the argument goes, it behooves
western businessman to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of such
“uniquely Japanese” cultural practices.
Rohlen (1974) considers the importance in Japanese organizations of the
procedures of discussion and participation and comments insightfully on this
element of Japanese organizational behavior. “For the Japanese, the procedures of
discussion and participation are institutionalized, office groups are far more
sensitive to the process of inclusion, and their leaders are far more inherently
equipped to manage this form of direction than their American counterparts. In
fact, the term for authority (keni) is not used in common thought to describe the
dynamics of group activity. Acceptance (nattoku), participation (sanka), resistance
(teikō), and opposition (hantai) are the dimensions of the problem, and impersonal
rules and formal position are of little significance in adjusting behavior from the
negative to the positive sides of these dimensions.” It is not a surprise to find that
at EUC both premeeting negotiations (nemawashi) as well as postmeeting
consultations (discussions in the professors’ room, offices, or local pub) are
important (cf. McVeigh 1997, p. 90). However, there is also a distinct lack of
nemawashi at EUC. I have been a part of many committee meetings that were
decidedly unsuccessful specifically because of a lack of proper “spadework.”
Such deliberations ensure that “just as one doesn’t try to pull up a tree stump
without accounting for all the roots, one doesn’t try to impose a perspective or
solution on a group without eliciting the (wholehearted) consent of each individual;
even a single unloosened root can prevent the release of the tree stump” (White
1987, pp. 17–18). Of course this may be a more insidious variation of consensus
seeking as in Goffman’s idea of “working consensus,” which is when a person “is
expected to suppress his immediate heartfelt feelings, conveying a view of the
situation which he feels the others will be able to find at least temporarily
acceptable. The maintenance of this surface of agreement, this veneer of
consensus, is facilitated by each participant concealing his own wants behind
statements which asserts values to which everyone present feels obliged to give lip
service (Goffman 1959, p. 11–12).” This type of conflict avoidance may in fact be
a cultural value that is not only an example of Japanese pedagogy and social ritual,
but represents the value of harmony of purpose that some argue is at the core of
Japanese morality and, hence, Japanese education (White 1987). This is viewed by
many Japanese as “unique to Japan” (Dale 1988), even though Goffman’s
description of working consensus is based on his observations of American society.
Kaizen and Hansei
Kaizen,
literally meaning “good (or virtuous) reform,” is well known in the west
(found in the Oxford English Dictionary as a loanword) as the Japanese business
philosophy of continuous improvement of working practices and personal
efficiency. The classic example is the alleged bottom-up approach of Japanese that
38