The modernization of human resource management in Japanese industry was realized by way of introduction of various systems from advanced Western countries. The basic philosophy underlying such modern human resource management systems is anchored in the concept of dichotomy. Needless to say, F.W. Taylor's scientific management system is the foremost example of this : the status and role of those in management and those subjected to management are sharply divided. Management monopolizes the power to decide about every minute detail of operation : those at the bottom of the hierarchy just are supposed to obey orders from above. Introduction of Taylor's system into Japanese industry took place in the 1920's, and 1930's, against the background of a fierce debate on how to evaluate scientific management within the Japanese context. One group of industrial engineers argued that workers at the work shop level should be treated not as mere objects of time and motion study, but rather as equal partner in any such study. These engineers attached prime importance to the rich implicit knowledge which workers naturally have on how to improve their own operations. In other word, according to this group of engineers there ought to be no dichotomy between the roles of shop-level workers and engineers; instead they preferred considering these respective roles as mutually complementary. The author wondered what was the origin of the concept of complementarity in Japan. His hypothesis implies that this concept has been an undercurrent of Japanese business philosophy since the middle of the Edo Period, around 1700-1800. Ideas about complementarity between management and labour were typically formulated in the works of thinkers like Ando Shoeki, Ishida Baigan, Ninomiya Sontoku and Tanaka Kyugu; Section II and III of this paper provide on evaluation of such works. Then, in Section IV the author proceeds to analyze the complementarity related philosophy and behavior of business leaders like Ohara Magosaburo, Shibusawa Eiichi and so forth who were active in the 1920's, and 1930's. In addition, Section IV also covers some representative examples of complementarity-based business patterns in the period after WW II, including a few cases of superior performance levels in the development of new car models in the automotive industry. Section V, finally, stresses the author's conviction that the concept of complementarity is not unique to Japan, but rather is of universal value.
Since the Hizen Porcelain Industry had started selling to European, American and Chinese merchants in 1860s, the Arita merchants conceived brands and selected designs to be reflected in the products made by manufacturers. In 1870s, Hizen Porcelain Industry sold on World Exhibitions and exported many products directly to European countries and America. The porcelain companies exported also directly while selling to foreign merchants in Nagasaki and Yokohama. Such strategies were adopted according to the changing conditions in internal and external markets. Around 1890, the Japanese merchants who lost their share in foreign markets gradually shifted to sales of both traditional and modern porcelain products in various national districts. Under unfavorable exporting conditions, Arita merchants united with manufacturers in their production and export activities. This reaction resulted in an integrated brand of Hizen Porcelain Industry which in turn, implied higher competition within the Japanese porcelain market itself.