In case that I understand the management as the active side, I thought that the principle to lead the management to succeed would be found. This paper is written to theorize on the management principle, that is, integrated economic rationality. This principle has been found as follows. Management is conducted through the following process, that is, input, throughput, output, market. This management process stems from the theory of "Capital circle process". Management is to be managed as the inequality of "I<O or I<M" is performed. This inequality is realized through organizational behaviors. I think that the following four sides for organizaiton to function need to be equipped, that is, economic rational side, human side, environmental side, and social side. I call these four sides four principles, namely, economic rationality principle, human principle, environmental principle, and social principle. These four principles relate each other, but economic rationality principle is placed in the center of other three principles. Other three principles are performed through economic rationality principle's screen. Economic rationality like this, we can call the integrated economic rationality.

View full abstract

In this paper, we try to deconstruct on the existing stakeholder model of the modern corporation. The stakeholder model has been a fundamental framework in business and society. Based on this model, many of stakeholder theorists have developed a management theory and a theory of the firm. The stakeholder model is used to attain two separate aims. On one hand, it is applied in the field of stakeholder management aiming at effective management, where focus is placed on the differentiation of each stakeholder. On the other hand, it is also applied as theory of the firm aiming at verification of stakeholder legitimacy, where emphasis is placed on the integration of each stakeholder. Thus, the logic of the stakeholder model is different by application. This model is so far formed on the assumption that the environment of corporations is composed of nothing but stakeholders, where the relationship between the corporation and stakeholders is consequently regarded as a relationship between the corporation and society. This duality of the model's application can be attributed to the treatment of stakeholders in the model. In the model, the stakeholder group is classified in terms of the influence on businesses of the stake, where the stakeholders are treated solely based on functionalism from the viewpoint of the corporation. The existing stakeholder model might bring about a distortional perspective of the relationship between the corporation and society, or of the roles of business in society. We criticize these problems as a pitfall of the existing stakeholder model. Hence, an alternative model which transforms the existing stakeholder model by placing the two constituents of the stakeholder concept on separate dimensions is presented. To reveal the logic of the transformation is our primary task in this paper.

View full abstract

At the beginning of the 1990s corporate governance became already a hotly discussed issue in advanced nations where corporate scandals occurred one after another. And now the whole world including transitional economies has strong interest in corporate governance. With deepening of the hot discussion on the topic more than 250 corporate governance principles as guidelines and codes of best practice for sound and efficient corporate management have actively been made in forty nation, and by ten international organizations such as OECD, GCGF, ICON, EASD and also by ten strong institutional investors like CalPERS, Hermes, TIAA-CREF. The purpose of this article is to clarify how these principles spread among firms, and then how they are accepted and applied to corporate management. Firstly, the author divides corporate governance principles into two types: one is manager-made principles and the other outsider-made principles. Secondly, he deals with them and clarifies their penetration process in the firm and their role in corporate management. Thirdly, the author handles innovative Japanese firms such as Sony, Nissan and Toyota that have their own corporate governance principles, and analyses how these firms applied them to create better corporate governance system.

View full abstract

This paper attempts to clarify the peculiar feature, action pattern, and the cause of recession of Japanese corporation by analyzing its self-organization activities in postwar with synthetic, historical and evolutionary viewpoints. After the Second World War, since people asked for the sufficiency of their many desires in corporation under the condition of malfunction of market and society, Japanese corporation established its purpose to maintain the continuation and growth of itself. In order to realize it, Japanese corporation created the institutions system, which controls inside and outside exchange relations, and did self-organization by the adaptation or active influence into market and society. According to the long-term exchange relations and tacit customs system, it can be concluded that Japanese corporation is a "mutual trust system" based on tacit customs and organization commitment. Mainly by the maximum exertion of employees led to confidential relation between individual and organization, Japanese corporation created the "Just in Time" production system and the environment required for its continuation and growth that were called the "organized market" and "corporation-oriented society". As the result, although Japanese corporation created a big success before the collapse of the "bubble prosperity", since the market and society's function were deteriorated by corporation's self-organization activity, various economical and social problems arose and became a serious obstacle to the continuation and growth of Japanese corporation itself. When an economy-society system is in malfunction state due to corporation's self-organization activities, it is possible to recover in the "heterogeneous symbiosis" equilibrium condition again by the reaction from market and society. Therefore, a possible evolution mode of Japanese corporation can be pursuit in self-limitation ofcorporation's action field and the function rehabilitation of market and society with the change of employees' job consciousness and economic globalization.

View full abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider a new trend of the product differentiation strategy. For manufacturing firms, it is certainly important to show some originality of their products. And their originalities are attained by peculiar management resources of each firm. However, it seems that having some peculiarities of management resources has become difficult by three changes in business environment. Three changes mean 1) "making components as modular", 2) "shift to open architecture", and 3) "shift to de facto standard". As a result, it becomes difficult to show originality of their final products. In such a business environment, how can firms differentiate their products? In this paper, by focusing on Sony's product differentiation strategy of PC, the importance of products linkage as a key factor of product differentiation is discussed. In spite of difficulty of product differentiation and late entry to the market, Sony succeeded to get higher share in PC market within relatively short period. The main reason of Sony's success in PC market is to emphasize the value, which can be attained from products linkage. Products linkage means to build up functional interface between PC and other digital products of Sony. This linkage enables to create new value. This value can not be got, as long as each product is used alone. Sony provides this value, through building up the linkage and controlling different products as a group of common interface. When it becomes difficult to make differentiation in the market, like Sony's strategy in PC market, it is certainly important to think about total value which is created by various products and their linkage. Building up the linkage for creating total value, that will be one of the most important management skill for making effective differentiation.

View full abstract

This paper was the international comparative study of the Lean production system between the Japan and South Korea automobile supplier, and analyzed the factors of a gap in the labor productivity and quality based on the quantity analysis and the participation observation investigation. The labor productivity and quality of the South Korean company (hereafter, K company) are confined to 1/3, under the levels of the Japanese company (hereafter, J company). The difference in quality and productivity not only occurred while producing the same product with the same equipment but also occurred after the adaptation of Japan's lean production system by K company. As the results of analyzing the gap between J and K company, the main factors of the difference in labor productivity of the both company occur to "the shortening of the set up time", and "the multifunctional skilled worker". K company has a longer set up time and production lead-time than the J company. K company also has large finished goods and process inventory. In addition to this, K company's workers operate only one machine because they are single functional skilled worker. Second, the low quality in K company's product is due to lack of precision in set up work and maintenance. In addition, the autonomation of production process and total quality control (all the number inspection in the process) are not executed. But, J and K company has the same cause of product defect, and not execute autonomation and total quality control. Therefore, we can conclude that the difference between J and K company in quality is due to lack of precision in set up work and maintenance. After the analysis, we can clearly conclude three main points. (1) The gap in labor productivity and quality is due to the difference in the management technology more than production technology. (2) The three key elements to improve the management technology are "the shortening of the set up time," "multifunctional skilled workers" and "quality control" as three elements of the lean production system. (3) As for the execution of 3 elements of the lean production system, the system should be thoroughly understood, and the activities that promote improvement and education of the system must be realized throughout the company as a whole...

View full abstract

Learning has two aspects. One is passive learning that regards memorizing knowledge as important. The other is active learning that contributes to creating new knowledge. Needless to say we need the latter learning much more today. Then we can present such a question as what kind of contribution in-company education does make. This question has not been treated appropriately so far. Most of the corporations in the U. S. that are thought of as being excellent about the ability to learn actively have attempted to restructure formal in-company education recently. Some of those corporations, for example, established so-called corporate universities. They try to bring up "learning human resources" through the restructuring. When we look back to former discussion about the organizational learning, we realize that knowledge which is related to informal "ba" (platform) or knowledge which is embedded in the "situation". I call such formal educational restructuring "Model 1". Voluntary free schools in the organization or action learning would represent essential part of Model 1. But we had better realize that official in-company education was the product of corporation organization "modernization". We are in the time of transition from "Modern" to "Post-Modern". This phenomenon is not an exception in the management field as well. So if we demolished the prejudice of modernism, then we could think that formal and official education may not be needed. In fact there are corporations that denies official in-company education and have performed well through active organizational learning. I call those corporations "Model 2". This model would be surprising or would sound absurd for the people who have long been active in the educational field. I will explain Model 2 theoretically with using concrete cases especially for those people to rethink fundamentally the given concept on in-company education.

View full abstract