Kaizen in Japan: transferring knowledge in

the workplace
Wayne G. Macpherson, James C. Lockhart, Heather Kavan and Anthony L. Iaquinto

Wayne G. Macpherson is he Japanese quality management movement has developed a specific set of tools
Lecturer at Massey
Business School, Massey
University, Palmerston
T and techniques in the continued pursuit of business excellence. These tools include
cost-cutting, time-reducing and continuous-improvement activities in the workplace,
developed through the underlying philosophy of kaizen, common to both Japanese society
North, New Zealand.
and business. To replicate the success of industrial Japan, business managers in the West
James C. Lockhart is Senior
Lecturer at Massey have adopted a perceived standardized set of tools and techniques to pursue sustained
Business School, Massey business excellence in the workplace. These tool sets are known as kaizen, Six Sigma, Just-
University, Palmerston in-Time and Kanban, to name a few. However, while these secondary Western tools and
North, New Zealand. techniques are replications of quality-management kaizen tools and activities employed in
Heather Kavan is Senior Japan, they hold little or none of the essence of the underpinning philosophical, cultural or
Lecturer at Massey societal norms of Japan. Further, although these tools and techniques resonate across
University, Palmerston industry in Japan, they are anything but universal in nature, instead being developed off the
North, New Zealand.
back of interpretations by individual employees within the bounds of their workspaces. The tools
Anthony L. Iaquinto is
and techniques Japan exports to the West are predominantly developed in and for the auto
Assistant Professor at
Monte Ahuja College of industry in the pursuit of sustained efficiencies in assembly-line production systems.
Business, Cleveland State These interpretations and resultant activity too are anything but static in nature. They are
University, Cleveland, Ohio, subject to change over time as individual employees climb the corporate ladder to higher
USA.
positions of financial responsibility and enhanced reputation. This shift (or drift) in individual-
employee work emphasis is the catalyst for the transference of general and specialized
kaizen knowledge and understanding in the workplaces of Japanese industry. This key
understanding of the non-universality of Japanese industrial thinking and subsequent
transfer provides a useful contribution to improved business performance over the longer
term for managers in the West.

Kaizen activity
The Japanese philosophy of kaizen and related activities provide a window through which
to explore Japanese industrial life and the mindsets of employees. Through extensive
research and experience in Japan, we have endeavored to provide non-Japanese
managers the opportunity to comprehend and appreciate the Japanese approach to quality
management, kaizen activity and resultant organizational life. We note that the Japanese
commonly observe two manifestations of the continuous improvement kaizen philosophy. In
daily life, it literally refers to improvement and ingenuity, but in industry and business, it is
the result of management’s engagement of the organization to pursue business excellence
through the interplay between management’s pursuit of profit and competition, and
employees’ skills, creativity, confidence and pride. Management and employees are then
codependent through the development and acquisition of multiple tools and methods – the
observable outputs we see – that create an energy across and through the organization that

j j
PAGE 40 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018, pp. 40-45, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0275-6668 DOI 10.1108/JBS-04-2017-0048
 “Management and employees are then codependent through
the development and acquisition of multiple tools and
methods.”

in turn encourages employees to seek and achieve proactive change and innovation. The
level of this energy and subsequent activity is dependent upon the proximity of these
management and employee elements, for the closer they are the more activity, the further,
the less. (Macpherson et al., 2015).
Research also finds that workplace quality management and kaizen activity are made up of
two mutually exclusive yet dependent components: the planned daily activity and
unplanned spontaneous responses of employees. This planned aspect is an adaption of
Shewhart’s PDCA cycle, popularized by Deming shortly after the Second World War
(Lillrank, 1995). The unplanned aspect results from the knowledge and experiences of each
employee and becomes explicit in the hands of each employee as they accept and perform
their daily duties in their respective workplaces. Other factors that contribute include formal
education and training within the company, and informal on-the-job experiences and
meetings.

Knowledge transfer across generations

As employees move up through the ranks of management, the context and content of their
work within the industrial organization changes from improving daily operations and
surroundings to guiding and educating more junior employees. To a new employee, kaizen
is a workplace activity to be implemented; it is visible, but not fully understood. It is provided
largely through company training and manuals. To the seasoned veteran who has moved
up the corporate ladder, kaizen is the accumulation of tacit knowledge and accumulated
experiences, and seen as more than just a means of reducing costs, increasing productivity
and decreasing lead times. Kaizen becomes something invisible that can generate real
results for the company’s profitability and the manager’s reputation, moving from a duty to a
matter of personal, group and organizational responsibility.
Resulting from management-employee participation in the workplace, organizational-
specific knowledge is subsequently transferred between generations as those with
knowledge and experiences in the workplace make it available to those without through
both formal and informal means. Those senior employees providing the education and
training then have their existing knowledge reaffirmed through repetition, which further
instills that knowledge. In the West, this is referred to as reflective practice (Pedler et al.,
2005). In the workplace, this shift of knowledge from senior to junior employees contributes
to, deepens and strengthens a company’s operational culture, to the point of creating the
organization’s very DNA.

Research method
This research set out to explore the practical pursuit of sustained business excellence in the
context of Japanese industrial organizations, as they have demonstrated exemplary growth
and sustainable resilience since Japan’s resurrection after the Second World War. A
requirement of sustainability is that common knowledge is transferred between generations
over the longer term. We asked the following research questions:
RQ1. Do employees in Japanese industrial workplace environments acknowledge and
exercise kaizen in a universal manner?

VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY j PAGE 41

 RQ2. Are any differences in the acknowledgement and exercise of kaizen associated
with career progression?
RQ3. If so, what practices are conducted at different career stages?
Data were collected from in-depth interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min from 53
participants employed fulltime in Japanese industrial organizations in Japan, aged between
23 and 61 years. The companies included Panasonic, Mitsubishi and the Yanmar group of
companies. The interviews were conducted in both Japanese and English. Appendix
provides an account of the interview questions used in the study and key responses.

Results
Statistical analysis identified two emergent groups: Generation 1, or those employees equal
to or under 47 years old; and Generation 2, being those over 47 years old. Participants of
both generational groups held management and administration/line positions. The mean
age of Generation 1 participants was 38.9 years and that of Generation 2 was 54.5 years.
Hierarchical positions held by employees were to some extent related to age. Statistical
analysis[1] of the data identified an inflexion point of the attributes of kaizen at 47 years of
age.

Acknowledging and exercising kaizen by generations

Research conducted by Japanese management guru Masaaki Imai (1986) found two
dimensions of workplace motivation: process-oriented and result-oriented. Process-oriented
employees seek improvement of their jobs and workplace processes and result-oriented
employees seek profit and achievement over other objectives. Following these dimensions,
this study found that respondents from both generational groups equally acknowledged that
workplace kaizen activity was used to achieve results in the workplace (52.8 per cent) and to
undertake daily tasks (47.2 per cent). In addition, while Generation 1 participants
acknowledged kaizen to achieve results and undertake daily tasks, Generation 2 participants
placed greater emphasis (60.7 per cent) on achieving broader business objectives. Senior
employees tended to acknowledge kaizen as a means to achieve results holistically, yet they
exercise kaizen as a means to undertake daily tasks. In contrast, junior employees were found
to acknowledge and exercise kaizen as a means to undertake daily tasks. Consequently, the
two groups (Generation 1 and Generation 2) harbor different knowledge and understanding of
kaizen in their workplaces.
The analysis of the responses produced three themes: kaizen promotes efficiency in daily
tasks; employee understanding changes with rank within the organization; and employees
hold different views of kaizen. An explanation of each of these themes now follows.
Kaizen promotes efficiency in daily tasks. During the interviews, participants reported that
they acknowledge and exercise kaizen in a similar manner, yet they largely exercise it in the
process-oriented form as a means to undertake daily tasks. They repeatedly spoke of
kaizen as an approach and activity within the bounds of the organization. This mirrors both
the Japanese academic literature (Saruta, 2006) and practitioner literature (JRS, 2006), as

“To a new employee, kaizen is a workplace activity to be

implemented; it is visible, but not fully understood.”

PAGE 42 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY j VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018

 “Senior employees tended to acknowledge kaizen as a
means to achieve results holistically, yet they exercise
kaizen as a means to undertake daily tasks.”

precise definitions are not provided, while loose conceptual iterations of change and
improvement suffice. Interestingly, as soon as the subject of defining kaizen was discussed,
the participants’ conceptualization shifted from tools and methods to the underpinning
philosophy, which is not evident in Western literature. These invisible manifestations are
unique to the individual in their workplace.
Employee understanding changes with rank. The Japanese hold loose conceptual
iterations of change and improvement (JRS, 2006; Saruta, 2006). The research data
gathered here revealed that participants’ understanding of kaizen changes through the
course of their careers due to underlying Japanese and organizational culture; the
accumulation of employees’ experiences; their attitude toward work; organizational
education and promotion programs; and general daily activities. The accumulation of
these processes subsequently becomes the determinant of changes in employee
attitudes to their jobs, their workplaces and their organizations over time. Ultimately,
they develop the human resources and systems of the organization in the pursuit of
organizational objectives. Active management by the top management team of the
organization directs short-term vision and activity within the organization, and directs
longer-term vision and the development of long-term relationships, which are dominant
in Japanese organizational management (Ohmae, 1982).
Employees hold different views of kaizen. A majority of the research participants
acknowledge that other employees within their organizations hold views of kaizen different
from their own. This, in addition to acknowledging significant changes in their own
understanding, further supports the view that participants are fully aware of their own
perceptions and those of other employees. This may explain tolerance towards a broad
understanding of kaizen so that individual interpretations may be accommodated. Kaizen is
seen as an integral part of individuals’ jobs and the operations of the organization (Brunet
and New, 2003; Lander and Liker, 2007). Beyond this awareness, Japanese employees are
able to use their own perceptions of kaizen as a proxy from which to undertake some form
of comparative analysis of other employees’ views.

Conclusion
As employees progress through their careers and in many cases the hierarchical ladder of
the organization, the positions they hold change, as does their approach to their jobs and
their organizations. We observe a shift in how employees acknowledge their approach to
kaizen from a process-oriented form to a result-oriented form. This shift most often occurs
mid- to late-career, as employees reach 45-50 years of age, at an inflexion point of 47 years.
The shift from managed employee to manager becomes the vehicle for organizational
sustainability as workplace knowledge and understanding are transferred from one
Keywords:
generation to the next. This in turn creates relationships of junior and senior, student and
Japan,
teacher, and disciple and mentor within the bounds of the organization, further Sustainability,
strengthening intra-organizational relationships. While this phenomenon was identified Business excellence,
through the processes of Japanese quality-management kaizen-philosophy and practice, Kaizen,
Exercise,
the understanding is not necessarily bound to a Japanese context, but is one that can be
Intergenerational,
incorporated into the management regimes of non-Japanese organizations in their pursuit Acknowledgement,
of sustainable competitive advantage and business excellence over the longer term. Drift

VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY j PAGE 43

 Note
1. Detailed statistical analysis is not been presented in this article. To code participant responses to
usable numerical data, their responses were recorded and transcribed. Two researchers then
coded each set of responses independently, and comparative analysis of the outputs was
performed to confirm the resultant data codes. Finally, SPSS software was used to conduct
statistical analysis, including extraction of descriptive details, frequencies of occurrence and
cross-tabulations.

References
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1426-1446.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Random House, New York, NY.
JRS (2006), “改善”の意味を明白にす [Clarifying the meaning of kaizen]”, available at: www.jrs.ne.jp/
sample/pdf/11550501.pdf (accessed 23 November 2016).

Lander, E. and Liker, J.K. (2007), “The Toyota production system and art: making highly customized and
creative products the Toyota way”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 16,
pp. 3681-3698.
Lillrank, P. (1995), “The transfer of management innovations from Japan”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16
No. 6, pp. 971-989.

Macpherson, W.G., Lockhart, J.C., Kavan, H. and Iaquinto, A.L. (2015), “Kaizen: a Japanese philosophy
and system for business excellence”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 3-9.
Ohmae, K. (1982), The Mind of the Strategist: The art of Japanese Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Brook, C. (2005), “What has action learning learned to become?”, Action
Learning: Research and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Saruta, M. (2006), “Toyota production systems: the Toyota way and labor-management relations”, Asian
Business & Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 487-506.

Appendix
The following is a summary of the interview questions and key responses obtained from the
study conducted in Japan. This provides the reader with first-hand insight and contact with
Japanese employees in the industrial workplace.

Question 1: how do you currently acknowledge kaizen?

Regardless of the result, any kind of change. (Division Chief, 53 years old)

I take a technical approach to items before me that are related to various problems (productivity,
quality, safety), and then undertake analysis and the appropriate measures. (Administration
Employee, 45 years old)

The improvement of job performance through efficiency, the reduction of waste, and the
establishment of work procedures. (Division Manager, 53 years old)

Through active improvement of productivity and quality. (Section Chief, 37 years old)

Question 2: how do you currently exercise kaizen?

To establish work procedures, developing business process flows. (Division Manager, 53 years
old)

Looking at things from different perspectives. Observing the same workplace every day with all
five senses. (Division Chief, 53 years old)

PAGE 44 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY j VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018

 In order to reduce wasted work and wasted expenses, I undertake maintenance and support as
required in the workplace. (Division Manager, 55 years old)

As my job involves the maintenance of machinery and equipment, I try to eliminate machinery
and equipment breakdowns, and I do repairs when failure occurs. I am also involved in energy
saving initiatives. (Section Chief, 44 years old)

Question 3: has your understanding of kaizen changed during your career (implicitly and ex-
plicitly)? If so, how?
Of course it has. Currently, we are implementing kaizen along the guidelines of the TPS [Toyota
Production System]. However, as we are in the construction equipment industry we are unable to
implement all aspects of TPS, only aspects that relate to our business; there is also equipment
involved in TPS that we do not use. When this situation occurs, we attempt to remove that aspect
of TPS from our minds, thus it is necessary to think how we can develop a workaround. However,
the basic contents of kaizen are the same. (Department Manager, 49 years old)

My thinking has changed as I moved through the ranks from general employee up to
management. When I was a general employee, I improved my own work operations. When I
became a manager I began to educate, guide other general employees. (Division Manager, 45
years old)

No change. (Division Chief, 53 years old)

My basic understanding of kaizen has not changed. (Division Manager, 43 years old)

Question 4: in your opinion, do other employees (generations) in your organization view kai-
zen differently? If so, in what way?
Kaizen activity undertaken by upper management is viewed as an essential activity to strengthen
the management structure. In the head office, kaizen activity is considered to be nurturing of
subordinates. For rank and file employees, kaizen activity is seen as the transmission of work
knowledge from seniors to subordinates. (Director, 60 years old)

Higher-level positions demand larger results. Lower-level positions tend to think about the pros
and cons of undertaking kaizen before results. In the higher ranks, judgment is based on results
only. The lower ranks want the effort of the execution of kaizen to be seen by senior
management. This is the same even for interdepartmental cases. People who undertake kaizen
are not excited only about the results, but also about the trouble of the implementation phase
and sense of accomplishment. (Group Leader, 43 years old)

I believe there isn’t much difference. (Section Chief, 44 years old)

I believe not. (Team Leader, 32 years old)

Corresponding author
Wayne G. Macpherson can be contacted at: w.macpherson@massey.ac.nz

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 39 NO. 3 2018 j JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY j PAGE 45