Baba, K (1990) Principal nature of management in Japanese construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), pp. 351-364. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
This article examines fundamental differences in the management styles of American and Japanese managers, and how these differences will impact the construction industry. Managerial problem solving using the analysis by C. G. Jung is explored to demonstrate how America relies on management by conscious means, while Japan employs management by unconscious means. Understanding the difference in the principles of two kinds of management helps illuminate many of the practical differences that exist between the two nations' construction industries. There are three subjects discussed explaining the actual differences in the management in the construction industries: organization of construction projects, meaning of conformity of contract, and meaning of fairness within the tendering system. These differences come from many unique characteristics that originated in the principles of Japanese management—management by unconsciousness.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | construction project, problem solving, meaning, Japan, manager, construction industry, fairness, management style, tendering system |
| Subjects: | management, decision-making and reasoning, tendering, production management, Geography, sociology, leadership, industry analysis, practitioner |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Human Resources, Roles and Professions, Procurement, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here