This is precisely the Japanese approach -- ringhi is their term for the
process of consensus decision making. While ringhi is underway the Japanese
firm is a formal "black box" saying nothing lest the firm be committed to a
path that is neither final nor yet approved by all stakeholders. An example
from my own sales history was a sale of some 400 CAD terminals to Hitachi --
2000 people signed off on that decision, repeat 2000. The decision will
include implementation and downstream logistics issues so that the entire
organization hits the ground running.
And note that I said a formal black box but not a pureblack boxx -- the
Japanese employ a number of informal back-channel tools to alert suppliers
and external firms otherwise there would be terrible scheduling gaps when
external firms are caught unprepared to respond -- as repeatedly happens
when US firms contracting with, or selling to, Japanese firms are given a PO
"out of the blue" and must scramble to get production lines up. The
Japanese are very frustrated when foreign firms are not prepared to
virtually commence delivery of the desired product(s), that they did not
"hear" the correct signals.
The Japanese use a chu-kaisha, or mutually agreed upon mediator, to which
both parties can speak bluntly and in back channel, while observing surface
harmony in meetings are largely ceremonial to flesh out pre-negotiated
conditions. I use this structure religiously in dealing with Japanese
(having done business there some twenty years and also having had the
opportunity to live there). To not do so leaves you only two outcomes --
see the deal greatly delayed or see the deal go away.
The letter of intent is the key event in Japan as it is a formal (public)
commitment of the firm whereas it's meaningless in the US. Suppliers can
take an intent letter to a Japanese bank and secure loans on the security of
the document alone. A Japanese supplier is already building tools and
setting up production -- based upon "formally binding rules of their
culture" -- whereas a US supplier is waiting for a PO -- a formally binding
legal instrument of their culture.
The Japanese consensus approach breaks down in the face of shortened
timeframes that do not permit each stakeholder to have their say. Rapid,
highly dynamic environments place great burdens on a Japanese approach. The
rigidity of their approval hierarchy can create fissures in the system in
dynamic situations. (A Japanese colleague did some interesting analysis of
the failure of the Imperial Japanese Army against the US Marines and found
that the US forces had an ability to exploit tactical opportunities in a
timeframe, and with creativity, unavailable to their Japanese counterparts.
Does this mean that we should not plan? that we should not involve
stakeholders? Certainly not. Does it mean that we should create a planning
and response system appropriate to the context of the culture, firm, and
product? and contains a means of setting -- and resetting -- mutual
expectations appropriate to the culture, or cultures, involved? My
experience says, Yes.
Best regards, Gordon Housworth
Intellectual Capital Group
ghidra@modulor.com
Tel: 810-626-1310
--Gordon Housworth <ghidra@modulor.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>