When Japanese and Western Decision-Making Collides
Are we hunting for an answer or defining the question?
“…the Westerner and the Japanese mean something different when they talk of ‘making a decision’. In the West, all the emphasis is on the answer to the question…to the Japanese, however, the important element in decision-making is defining the question. And it is in this step that the Japanese aim at attaining consensus. Indeed, it is this step that, to the Japanese, is the essence of the decision. The answer to the question (what the West considers the decision) follows from its definition.” ~Peter Drucker
When it comes to managing and preventing friction in the mixed Japanese-American workplace, one of the toughest nuts to crack is reconciling the two cultures’ starkly different approaches to decision-making. Drucker’s quote above astutely articulates the results-oriented Western approach (“What’s the answer!?”) versus Japan’s process-oriented approach (“What’s the question!?”)
Reconciling this fundamental difference in mental framing is impossible when both sides are oblivious to each other’s approach. If these different cultural orientations are not acknowledged and addressed, then you end up with widespread frustration and team dysfunction, a situation not uncommon in Japanese-owned companies operating in foreign countries.
I spent over forty years in the U.S. and Japan listening to gripes from both sides. Below is a summary of the most common complaints.
Typical American gripes about Japanese decision-making
When administering workshops, I used to kick off sessions with small group activities whereby each group would collectively list what they enjoyed about working with the other side and also what drove them bonkers.
The comments are as interesting as they are enlightening.
Typical American gripes include:
“It takes forever for Japanese to make decisions.”
“Japanese want too much data — ‘analysis paralysis.’”
“Japanese have ‘secret meetings’ that exclude Americans because they don’t trust us.”
“We go to meetings to debate an issue to make the best possible decision, but the Japanese completely ignore our input.”
“Japanese don’t like to take risks.”
Japanese have plenty of gripes, too
On the other side of the cultural divide, consider what Japanese managers say about American counterparts:
“Take action without understanding the current situation.”
“Don’t gather enough data, don’t conduct root-cause analysis.”
“Take shortcuts through trial-and-error.”
“Don’t properly follow up to ensure implemented countermeasures achieved intended results.”
“Take action without consulting with affected departments.”
I could write a separate post on each of these comments, but today we’ll focus on the process and analysis of a typical breakdown in Japanese-American workplace communications as they relate to decision-making and problem-solving.
Digging Deeper
As someone with one foot in each culture, I can say with confidence that:
- False perceptions are coloring each side’s interpretation of the other side’s intentions.
- There is some truth in what both sides are saying.
The comments also indicate how little the cultures know about each other.
To cite a concrete example, Americans’ feelings get hurt when Japanese make decisions without considering their input at meetings. American employees tend to assign the worst possible motivations to Japanese counterparts, namely, that they are excluded from the decision-making process due to Japanese not valuing their input and/or mistrusting foreigners.
Truth is that Japanese rarely make decisions of any consequence at official meetings even when dealing with fellow Japanese coworkers, as public debate runs the risk of disrupting group harmony.
In my experience, once Americans get this vital piece of information, bad feelings evaporate, and everyone holds hands and sings Kumbaya. Well, not quite, but close enough!
As a disclaimer, I’m not saying that one way is better than the other. In some situations American-style results-oriented decision-making is more effective than the plodding, methodical Japanese approach.
And sometimes the “Japanese way” is better, especially when applied to manufacturing operations. (Tip of the hat to Deming for his enduring influence on Japanese problem-solving methodology.)
In other words, it’s all about context.
My belief has always been that if someone can figure out how to combine the disciplined Japanese approach to defining problems with American efficiency and creativity, it would be a game-changer. Easier said than done, but a worthy aspiration to pursue!
Below is my analysis of key disconnects at play below the linguistic surface when Japanese and my compatriots discuss anything related to decision-making and problem-solving. Unless these hidden disconnects are understood by both sides, the twain will never meet.
(How to interpret the model below: Start with the top level and compare what’s being said by each person. Next, compare what they’re thinking, then move to their different assumptions, and finally, the values and experiences that form the foundation of those assumptions.)
*Note: PDCA means “Plan-Do-Check-Adjust”
Strategies for bridging the gaps
Let’s first cover strategies related specifically to cross-cultural decision-making.
If you’re a Westerner dealing with Japanese counterparts, resist the temptation to say, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea!” Instead, focus on gaining consensus on what the problem is. In concrete terms, it means demonstrating that you’ve made the effort to thoroughly gather and analyze pertinent data, and have also consulted with affected parties to view the current situation from various perspectives.
Next, invite Japanese counterparts to help you uncover blind spots you missed in defining the problem.
Once consensus on problem-definition is reached, then you are ready to take the next step: brainstorming potential solutions and/or proposing your great idea (assuming it’s still viable). Just to restate Drucker’s key point above, the “consensus” part of the decision applies to problem definition, not the solutions implemented.
If you are a high-context Japanese professional dealing with Westerners, be sure to articulate your thought process in detail, including expectations, assumptions, and methodology. This is best done through in-person discussions, question-and-answer sessions, and joint participation in actual decision-making. The latter requires you to invite non-Japanese counterparts into the unofficial behind-the-scenes nemawashi process so they feel part of the team.
But the most valuable advice I can offer is general in nature. For improved communication in all facets of intercultural communication, keep these guidelines in mind:
- Resist the temptation to take words at face value; understand that words alone are insufficient to bridge the culture gaps.
- Study up on your counterpart by reading publications with intercultural content (like Japonica!), by attending intercultural business training, and developing an ongoing dialogue with counterparts. Structured workshops using a knowledgeable cross-cultural business educator can go a long way in jump-starting the learning process and initiating an intercultural dialogue.
- Use the above communication model as a framework in formulating questions that will help identify key hidden differences in thoughts, assumptions, and values.
- Work on developing human relationships — outside of work if possible — as it will foster empathy and build mutual trust, two key conditions that naturally lead to improved communication.
- Have fun.
If stories about my cross-cultural triumphs and failures in Japan sound like fun, you can read all about ’em here.
If you are on LinkedIn and would like to connect, please reach out with a brief note introducing yourself. Here’s a link to my profile.
© Tim Sullivan 2022
