Corporate Governance Archives - Rudlin Consulting

People rather than shareholding unite Japan’s conglomerates

I sometimes wonder if I am being a bit “old school” in going into detail on the history and influence of Japan’s keiretsu (conglomerates of companies such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sumitomo) in my training sessions. It’s a legacy of working at Mitsubishi Corporation for nearly 10 years, and also my hobby of researching 19th century Japan-UK relations, in which Mitsubishi, Mitsui and Sumitomo played an important part.

A recent article in Diamond magazine is reassuring to me in that it shows that the deep relationships within the keiretsu endure – pointing out that the interrelationships between the different companies in each keiretsu are still going strong, but through the mechanism of people rather than cross shareholdings.

The Mitsubishi power pyramid

For example, Mitsubishi Motors’ new external directors include Takehiko Kakiuchi – former President, now Chairman of Mitsubishi Corporation. He is taking over from Ken Kobayashi, who had also been President and then Chairman of Mitsubishi Corporation before Kakiuchi. Other candidates are Kanetsugu Mike (that’s MEE-kay, not Mike, as his biographies tetchily point out), formerly President, now Chairman of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group who will be joining his predecessor as Chairman of MUFG, Kiyoshi Sono on the Mitsubishi Motors board.

Diamond magazine puts the “Gosanke” – three honorable families – of MUFG, Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries at the top of the “power pyramid”, then the next tier contains Mitsubishi Trust & Banking, Mitsubishi Material, Mitsubishi Real Estate, Mitsubishi Electric, AGC, NYK, Tokio Marine & Fire, Meiji Yasuda Life, Kirin Holdings.

The tier below that contains Mitsubishi Logistics, ENEOS Holdings, Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings, Mitsubishi Steel, Mitsubishi Paper, Mitsubishi Kakoki, Mitsubishi Gas Chemicals, Nikon, Mitsubishi Motors, Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus, MA Aluminium, PS Mitsubishi, Mitsubishi Research and Mitsubishi UFJ Securities.

The above are all in the Kinyokai – Friday Club – a lunch of the heads of all the member companies – fuel for many conspiracy theorists. These three tiers plus a further fourth tier, containing companies such as Lawson and Mitsubishi HC Capital, form the Mitsubishi Public Affairs Committee, which acts the guardian of the Mitsubishi brand.

Shunichi Miyanaga of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is an external director of Mitsubishi Corporation, Ken Kobayashi (chairman of Mitsubishi Corporation ) and Nobuyuki Hirano (former chairman of MUFG) are both external directors of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Akio Negishi, chairman of Meiji Yasuda and Toshifumi Kitazawa formerly President of Tokio Marine & Fire are both on the board of MUFG. I could go on, and Diamond does.

Mitsui’s loose ties

Diamond magazine show Mitsui’s group interrelations as concentric circles rather than a pyramid. A the heart are Mitsui Real Estate, Mitsui & Co and SMFG. SMFG is a product of the merger of Sumitomo Bank and Mitsui’s Sakura bank, which is one reason why the ties are looser. Their Monday club includes Mitsui Chemical, Mitsui E&S, Toray, Mitsui Kinzoku and Sumitomo Mitsui Trust. The next ring are also members of the public affairs committee with the first two – Denka, Oji, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, Mitsui OSK, Sanki, JSW, Mitsui Sumitomo Construction.

Then the outer ring are “companies who keep their distance”, most notably Toyota, who Mitsui love to remind were bailed out by Mitsui in the 1960s, Toshiba, Fujifilm and IHI. It also includes the department store group Mitsukoshi Isetan (who have former Mitsui & Co, Toshiba and SMFG executives on their board). Toyota has a female external director from SMFG on its board and Toyota has its chairman on the board of Mitsui.

Sumitomo’s three peaks

Diamond characterises the Sumitomo group as having three peaks – financial, mining & manufacturing and the postwar group. At the top of each peak is SMBC, Sumitomo Metal & Mining/Sumitomo Chemical and Sumitomo Corporation. Sumitomo Metals used to be the third family, but has recently merged with Nippon Steel, and so is no longer seen as part of the group. Within the mining and manufacturing group are NEC (who have external directors from SMFG and Sumitomo Corporation) and NSG (who has an external director from SMBC).

Reflecting on these lists, I realise that the bulk of my work over the years has come from Mitsubishi group companies, although there have been some notable clients from the Sumitomo group. I don’t think I’ve had a single client from the Mitsui group. That is, apart from Mitsui Sumitomo & Aioi Nissay Dowa, the insurance group who acquire Amlin a while back. Even then it was more via Aioi Nissay Dowa. Aioi Nissay is not mentioned in the three peaks, or the Mitsui rings which makes me wonder whether, despite its partnership with Mitsui Sumitomo, it is not regarded as “outside” both Mitsui and Sumitomo. I wonder also if the Mitsubishi group is more active globally than Mitsui, and with the exception of Sumitomo Electric Industries, the Simitomo group too, but this could be confirmation bias on my part.

As Diamond says, each group has its individuality, but maintains cohesion through people – the “external” directors who are really not “outside” at all. Can these arrangements survive the corporate governance headwinds?

For more content like this, subscribe to the free Rudlin Consulting Newsletter. 最新の在欧日系企業の状況については無料の月刊Rudlin Consulting ニューズレターにご登録ください。

Japan’s less equal companies

I often cite in my seminars that one obvious sign of the ethos gap between Japanese listed companies and the top 350 US companies is that Japanese presidents generally earn a multiple of 10-20 of the average salary in their companies, whereas the multiple for American CEOs is 350 or so.

There are exceptions of course, but even the board directors of the company at the top of Toyo Keizai’s income gap ranking (Toshin) earn an average of just under 60 times the average salary in the company. Many of the other companies at the top of Toyo Keizai’s rankings have non-Japanese executive directors, who are usually paid closer to American levels, such as Takeda Pharma (#3), SoftBank (#5) but there are other companies whose executives are all Japanese, such as Toyota (#6), JT (#15), Itochu (#16), Horiba (#17) and Canon (#20). Even so, only the top 10 have multiples of over 30, and only the top 25 have multiples of over 20. So the ethos gap is still holds.

I decided to stop talking about diversity in Japan – Professor Christina Ahmadjian

The new corporate governance code in Japan puts further pressure on Japanese companies to have external, independent directors on their boards. For those companies wanting to be on the new prime market, the code stipulates that a third of directors should be external. Companies are now facing a severe shortage of candidates deemed suitable to fill these roles particularly if companies are also trying try to be as diverse as possible in who is appointed.

The same faces keep popping up, including people such as Professor Christina Ahmadjian of Hitotsubashi University who is currently an external director for four Japanese companies; Japan Exchange Group (the Tokyo and Osaka stock exchanges), Sumitomo Electric Industries, Asahi Group Holdings and NEC . She was also an external director at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries until June of this year.

Her remedy for this shortage of suitable candidates, which she outlined in a recent interview with Nikkei Business, is to hire people from a wider variety of backgrounds. Not just university professors like her, but Japanese women who are working outside Japan, or even having a quota for people under 30 years of age. In her view, even a third may not be enough, because it would mean that the majority are still “salarymen” who have worked their way up the same company all their careers. “The director’s most important role is to appoint and dismiss the CEO. Previously, when I asked a Japanese company what is the difference between the board positions of a managing director (known as joumu in Japan) and a senior managing director (known as senmu), I was told, when a managing director gets older, he becomes a senior managing director. Such a board of directors will not be able to make the top management quit.”

You need people who don’t read the air

External directors need to be able to reject management policies in board discussions. They must also have the mindset that they can quit themselves at any time. You need people who don’t “read the air” the way salarymen directors do.

“Two years ago I decided to stop talking about diversity. I will not give a speech on it and I refuse to be interviewed on it. It doesn’t change no matter how strongly I put the case. If I give a lecture on diversity, people will listen hard and then say “OK, that was good.” I felt it was just entertainment. Japan’s gender diversity is certainly more advanced than before. More companies are introducing maternity leave systems. But why is it so slow. I think “just do it!””

As for diversity in terms of nationality, there are many students who love Japan and want to come to Japan to study and work for a Japanese company. However, after graduating, if they get a job at a Japanese company, after about five years they quit, as they have realised that they can’t sse a future, and their friends at other companies are being promoted faster and have higher salaries. So ofthen they choose to work for a foreign owned company while living in Japan.

1980s uncle management

“Japanese companies are more concerned with their internal talent management than with diversity. So why not hire in Indians and Russians with the necessary IT skills?” Ahmadjian is concerned that what she callls “uncle (ojisan) management” from the 1980s means Japan will not be able to compete globally.

Ahmadjian has lived in Japan for over 20 years, and was herself an office lady at Mitsubishi Electric in the early 1980s. She served tea and wore a uniform. “I really enjoyed it then, but it was a world of old uncles.” “When I asked the top management of a company what is the definition of young, I was told 55 years old. I got them to lower the definition to 50 years’ old.” Japanese-style management may have worked well as a system in the postwar context, but I think it is time to reconsider.”

Top earning foreign executives at Japanese companies in 2021

Seven out of the ten best paid executives in Japan are not Japanese, according to Tokyo Shoko Research. It’s been more than ten years since Japanese companies were obliged to disclose the details of executives earning more than ¥100m (around $900K) and was cited as one of the reasons that Nissan got themselves into such a twist about their CEO Carlos Ghosn’s pay.

No Nissan executives appear in the Top 30 this year, unsurprisingly. The number of executives paid over ¥100m has risen for the first time in two years, and Hitachi has the most – with 15 executives including the British head of the rail division, Alistair Dormer. Dormer is not, however, being paid more than his Japanese boss, Mr Higashihara, although this has happened in the past at companies such as NSG.

The financial group MUFG has 11 executives earning over ¥100m and Mitsui, the trading house conglomerate and Daiwa Securities both have 9. Tokyo Electron and SoftBank both have 8 executives earning over ¥100m. SoftBank’s Simon Segars, British CEO of ARM is the highest paid executive of a Japanese company, earning ¥1,880m (around $17m) and SoftBank’s COO Marcelo Claure is the third highest paid, with SoftBank’s Rajeev Misra, Ronald Fisher, Miyauchi Ken and Goto Yoshimitsu at #6, #7, #12 and #21 respectively.

FANUC, Daikin, Toyota Motor, LIXIL, Sony, ENEOS and Mitsubishi Electric all have 7 executives earning more than ¥100m. I would be surprised if the latter was in the rankings next year, however, given its current difficulties.

Other high earning foreign executives include Christophe Weber at #2 and two other executives at Takeda Pharma, Didier Leroy at Toyota Motor (#4) , Bijoy Mohan at LIXIL (transferred with LIXIL’s Grohe acquisition) and Stefan Kaufman at Olympus.

So if you want to be a high paid foreign executive at a Japanese company, work for a Japanese company that has a high proportion of its business overseas either through organic growth (Toyota) or more likely through acquisition – Hitachi Rail, Takeda, LIXIL, Olympus, SoftBank.

Top 10 Japanese corporate charity donors in the UK

Japan-owned companies in the UK contributed over £17 million to charity in 2019. £10 million of this, however, was the donation made by First Sentier Investments (formerly First State Investments), owned by Japan’s MUFG Group since 2019.

£8.5m of the £10m went to the Maitri Trust which was established by the Stewart Investors team members (part of First Sentier Investments) in 2006, and helps educational initatives in India, South Africa and Mexico. The other £1.5m was given to the Charities Aid Foundation. 2019’s donation was a substantial increase on the £5.5m First Sentier donated in 2018.

The biggest Japanese corporate donors (>£100,000) increased their charitable budgets over the past two years, but overall the total dropped 3% on a like for like basis (not including First Sentier as they were not Japan owned in 2018/9).

Benchmarking Japanese corporate charitable donations

It’s difficult to benchmark Japanese companies’ charitable activities in the UK against FTSE 100 companies as many of the Japanese companies in the UK operate on a regional or global basis and the charitable donations are on that basis too. Only around 10% of the 1000 or so Japanese companies in the UK put a monetary figure on their charitable donations in their annual reports, or specifically state that they do not donate to charity.

The Charities’ Aid Foundation issued a report in 2018 on FTSE 100 charitable donations, which estimated that the FTSE 100 donated around £1.9bn in 2016. The report uses donations as a percentage of pre tax profit as a benchmark. Unfortunately some of the biggest Japanese companies in the UK such as Toyota, Nomura and Dentsu have been making losses in recent years so this is not a benchmark which can be readily applied to them. However, CAF’s cut off point of “at least 1% of pre-tax profits” as being an indication of commitment to charitable giving means that it is possible to say that JTI, Dentsu (using 2018 figures), Mitsubishi Corporation, Fujitsu Services and Ricoh are all in the “above 1%” category.

The Top 10 Japanese corporate givers

The next biggest donor after First Sentier was Japan Tobacco International through their Gallaher subsidiary in the UK. They donated £3.24m in 2019, a similar level to 2018. Gallaher “works with leading charities to improve the lives of socially isolated older people as well as those who are homeless, disabled or excluded from society in other ways”. They have a UK Community Investment Programme which has been accredited with Business in the Community’s CommunityMark. Employees have an allowance of up to 6 days’ a year to get involved in community fund raising and volunteering.

The third largest Japanese corporate donor was advertising and marketing group Dentsu Aegis Network, (soon to be rebranded as Dentsu International) whose global headquarters are in London. They donated £1m to charity (£0.9m in 2018) – but this is likely to be a worldwide, excluding Japan total. Dentsu announced in 2017 that “Society” was now one of its official stakeholders and announced a new social purpose of a digital economy for all. They are aiming to reach a billion people with sustainable development goal led campaigns and support 100 female founded businesses. They are launching a digital skills initiative to support 100,000 people to improve their skills.

Close behind are Toyota Motor Manufacturing UK, who donated £0.9m in 2019, slightly down on the previous year of £0.95m. It “seeks to support good causes in the areas local to its manufacturing operations” [Burnaston in Derbyshire and Deeside]. It has a charitable trust that makes donations in the areas of road safety, social inclusion and deprivation and health. As well as fund raising it makes in kind donations of cars, parts and volunteering hours (included in the £9.08m). Its nominated charity of the year was the Derbyshire, Leicestershire & Rutland and Wales Air Ambulance Service.

Mitsubishi Corporation donated £267,000 in 2019/20 (up from £140,000 in 2018/19) – to the British Museum , the Earthwatch Fellowship Programme, the University of Cambridge Faculty of East Asian Studies, the UK-Japan Music Society and the Mitsubishi Corporation Fund for Europe and Africa, which engages with partner organisations in environmental conservation.

Hitachi Capital donated £250,000 (up from £200,000 in the previous year) in 2019/20. Their national charity partner is FareShare which redistributes food going to waste to charities and community groups – contributing to the sustainable development goal of “no poverty”. Hitachi Capital staff also volunteer at FareShare. The group also works with Young Enterprise and The Wildlife Trust.

Nomura established The Nomura Charitable Trust in 2009, “supporting disadvantaged young people in the local communities in which it operates through both grant making and employee engagement in the form of volunteering and other engagement initiatives.” It gave £235,659 to 11 charities which aligned with the objectives of the trust and were recommended by Nomura employees in the year ending March 2019.

Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceutical company with a factory in Hatfield donated £212,000 in 2018/9, up from £116,00 in 2017/8. Around half of this was to patient organisations such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and Breast Cancer Now, according to their “Transparency” page on their website.

In 2018/9 Fujitsu raised over £200,000 for its partner charity Macmillan Cancer Support as well as 5,500 volunteer hours spent by employees volunteering and skill sharing.

The Olympus KeyMed group via KeyMed (Medical and Industrial Equipment Ltd) gave £122,621 within the UK, of which £45,905 was to healthcare charities, £40,202 was to “other”, £33,856 was to cancer charities and £2,658 to children’s charities. This represented a 10% decrease on the previous year

Ricoh UK made £110,426 in charitable donations in 2019, a significant increase on the previous year’s £66,285. The sum represents both financial and in kind, providing products and people to support charitable activities.

The others

Many of the larger Japanese companies in the UK not mentioned above do contribute to charities but do not put a price tag on this in their annual reports. Nissan Motor Manufacturing, for example, launched a Days for Change Europe wide programme where employees can take days “off” to volunteer. Kwik Fit, owned by Japanese trading company Itochu announced in 2019 that its charity partner was Children with Cancer UK, and a target of £1m to be raised through its sponsorship of the British Touring Car Championship.

Hitachi Rail says it made no charitable donations in 2019, seemingly leaving this up to its employees, who raised £156,846 for the Railway Children charity “to date.”

Canon UK describes its “social value policy” as comprising “employability skills training, education support, community and charitable activities” but goes into no further detail.

Conclusions

Japanese executives who had lived in the UK have occasionally remarked to me how many charity shops there are in the UK and how often they are approached by their employees to help with fundraising initiatives. According to Charities’ Aid Foundation, the UK is number 6 in the world in terms of individual charitable giving (money and time), after Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Ireland. Japan is at 128 but in 6th position in terms of the number of people who volunteer time for charitable causes.

Certainly I remember when living in Japan and working for Mitsubishi Corporation that there were plenty of opportunities to get involved in volunteering via the company. Conversely, to my relief, noone ever asked me to sponsor them to take a charity ramen bath. I have vivid memories of being in a group of employees who took severely disabled people to Tokyo Disneyland. National disasters such as the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami also saw thousands of employees of various companies giving up weeks on end to go to the region to help.

Those Japanese companies who do give substantial amounts of money to charity in the UK tend either to have acquired established British companies and therefore their legacy of charitable activity (JTI, Dentsu, Fujitsu, Olympus KeyMed) or are manufacturers employing large numbers of staff and looking for ways to engage with the local community such as Toyota, Eisai and Ricoh. In many cases, the decision makers will also be local executives looking to raise the brand profile in a globally appealing way, so a specifically “Japanese” flavoured proposition may not be of great interest unless part of their corporate purpose is to represent Japanese interests abroad.

There are plenty of funds in Japan set up by companies such as Toshiba, Honda, Panasonic (Matsushita) but these tend to be educational in orientation and more in the business of awarding prizes, scholarships and research grants. Japanese companies will sometimes endow foundations overseas (Nissan Institute of Japanese Studies at Oxford, Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation) which are also educational and dispense scholarships and grants.

Anyone wishing to approach Japanese companies may need to bear these differences and distinctions in mind. For local giving, it will be necessary to win over the local employees, and for large, prestigious donations, much of the funding available may be controlled from Japan.

Japanese business mysteries explained in 5 minutes #3 Antiquated technology

Non-Japanese people who work in Japanese companies are often shocked at how antiquated the IT is in Japanese companies, considering how much Japanese people love new technologies.

Why is this, and will COVID-19 force change?

The next in our series “Japanese Business Mysteries Explained in 5 Minutes”

3 keys to success in overseas post merger integration according to Suntory

Suntory acquired US company Beam in 2014, since which it jointly developed and launched new gins and whiskeys. Overseas sales are now 42.7% of Suntory’s turnover, compared to 25.2% in 2013 and the merger is generally thought to have been a success, according to the Nikkei Business magazine.

Suntory took on a mountain of debt to buy Beam. Suntory President Niinami Takeshi felt in 2014 that Beam’s attitude was complacent, considering the pressures Suntory was under. They were making personnel decisions without any regard to Suntory’s wishes. Beam may have felt that as Suntory’s spirits business was folded into the new Beam Suntory, this meant Beam had the right to do as it pleased.

The three elements Suntory’s President Niinami felt were crucial to post merger integration were:

1. Parent company should make personnel decisions

Niinami transferred the authority to nominate directors of Beam Suntory to Japan HQ, set up a new compensation committee which he chaired, and sent an internal auditor from Suntory to Beam. The CEO of Beam Suntory at the time, Matt Shattock, was not pleased, but Niinami was firm, saying “we are the owners”. Niinami says this was the biggest reason for the successful merger. He made sure that he also listened to Beam executives and ultimately replaced Shattock with Albert Baladi, seeing him as someone who could drive Beam Suntory’s growth in Asia (and indeed they have just announced they will be making whiskey in India soon).

2. Be based near the customer

Baladi clearly won over Niinami by understanding the importance of the Gemba – the shopfloor, the coalface. Beam Suntory’s headquarters was moved to central Chicago, in a district full of bars and restaurants, from a suburb an hour outside the city. Again, this did not thrill the then CEO Matt Shattock, whose 15 minute drive into work by car turned into a 1.5 hour commute. “It took 2 years to persuade him”, says Niinami.

Being focused on the gemba was not just about the headquarters. Beam previously had frowned upon inefficiencies such as visiting retail outlets frequently to understand what products most matched them. Its emphasis was on short term profits. Niinami changed this by sending several experienced Suntory sales and marketing people to Beam Suntory. One was Takeuchi Jun, who insisted on visiting high class bars and restaurants in Chicago, introducing Beam Suntory products, to increase the fanbase. He was adamant to local employees that sales for home consumption would increase as a result.

Usually, hearing that sales and marketing people from Japan headquarters are coming to an overseas subsidiaries to change the way Western marketing works would make me nervous. Sales and marketing (if it exists at all) are very different in Japan to Western countries, but it seems to have worked. For example, Suntory was able to successfully introduce the Highball Tower machine to bars in the USA – which makes a cocktail of whiskey (in this case Suntory’s Toki) and sparkling water.

3. Return to craftsmanship

Along with gemba, Suntory introduced the Japanese concept of monozukuri. Niinami was shocked that when he visited Jim Beam’s main distillery in Kentucky in 2016, to see that the workers were on strike, angry with management based in the headquarters an hour’s flight away. Bourbon sales were doing well globally, and the management asked the distillery to increase production without anything being changed at the distillery. Temporary staff were taken on with employment terms which the existing workers were unhappy with.

Niinami thought this “monitoring from above” approach was misguided, and removed the factory chief, bringing in the production director from Japan. Distilling space and warehousing were increased with a $500m investment in one year.

Suntory also encouraged joint development of new drinks such as Legent. I noticed in Europe the sake-like gin Roku from Suntory was launched in 2017 (and I’m a big fan). Will they also be moving Beam Suntory in the UK from suburban Uxbridge to somewhere with a night life like Soho?

Rudlin Consulting has assisted many European companies acquired by a Japanese parent. Please contact Pernille Rudlin for further details.

What is a trustee?

Japanese businesspeople often tell me how prominent the charitable sector seems to be in the UK compared to Japan. They often receive requests from employees to sponsor them on a fund raising run, or see many charity shops lining British high streets. Half of the £50.6bn annual income of charities in the UK is derived from individual donations, and the rest is from sources such as government funding, the state-run National Lottery and the private sector.

Earlier this year I became a trustee of two charities – the Japan Society of the UK and also of a charity local to the city I live in which helps refugees, asylum seekers and other immigrants to integrate into British society. Both charities are also “incorporated” so I am both a director, accountable to Companies House and a trustee, accountable to the Charities Commission.

Trustees of charities and directors of companies in the UK have similar duties, arising from their obligation to safeguard the money from donors or from shareholders. They must ensure that the charity or company complies with regulations, that the charity or company acts in accordance with the charitable purpose or strategy they have committed to and that relevant risks are recognised and dealt with.

At the workshop I attended to understand my duties as a trustee, the trainer confirmed my impression that the UK’s charitable sector is much larger not only than Japan’s but also than other European countries’ and the US’s. In other European countries the state looks after its citizens more, whereas in the USA the individual has to be more self-reliant. The regulation of trustees in the UK dates back to the 17^th century, when the gap between what the state would support and what individuals would provide in the UK was filled by charities, often church based. Some of these charities were, however, seen as corrupt or of very little benefit and were not trusted. So citizens were appointed as “trustees” to make sure that the charity was acting in the public interest.

The trainer pointed out another difference between the USA and the UK, which may be of interest to Japanese businesspeople familiar with both cultures. In the US, the ends are all that count – so long as the targets of the charity are met, there is less concern about how that target was reached, or where the donor money is coming from. This is the same in American business life – you have to obey the law, but the morality of what you do otherwise in your business is up to you.

In the UK however, trustees and directors are meant to be concerned about the means as well as the ends. You are judged in court not just on whether or not you broke a law, but by whether your behaviour was “reasonable”. So long as you made sufficient efforts to do the right thing, a mistake, an oversight or a failure to reach a goal is forgiven.

This article was originally published in Japanese in the Teikoku Databank News on 9th October 2019

The cause of Japan’s low productivity: 5 generalists doing one specialist’s job

In the Nikkei Business series on how to “wake up Japan”, Senior Chairman and former CEO of Japanese leasing and financial services company Orix Yoshihiko Miyauchi sees three mistakes that have led to Japan’s “lost three decades”

Allowing an asset bubble to develop in Japan the first place
Not stabilising the economy after the asset price crash.
Not restructuring the Japanese banking system quicker – real restructuring did not happen until the 2000s, 10 years after the crash.

As a result, Japanese companies were “like tiny boats on a big ocean, using all their energy to avoid large waves. Rather than innovate or grow, they focused on cost cutting”, says Miyauchi.

Miyauchi rates Japanese employees very highly – “they have a strong sense of responsibility, and do all they can to fulfil their obligations. But there is a lack of creative thinkers. There is a problem in the way we develop people – Japanese companies are always developing generalists, when in the future we need to focus intensively on supporting the development of specialists. If you don’t have specialists who are the complete experts, then you cannot achieve high performance. Japanese companies end up having 5 ‘semi professionals’ doing one specialist’s job. ”

“It would be a big shock to change this immediately, so probably Japanese companies will need a hybrid development system with a specialist track and a generalist track.” I agree, but I have seen that in the past when this is done in Japanese companies, the specialist track is seen as a demotion away from line management. Japan may need to introduce specialist, professional organisations such as the various chartered institutes we have in the UK, which certify qualifications and support continuing professional development, to ensure that specialists are less reliant on the prejudices of their company’s HR system for their careers.

Myth 1. Young Japanese aren’t loyal to their employers

“They just use the company as a stepping stone”

Japanese companies have been worrying for a while now that young people are job hopping far more than previous generations. A Mynavi survey shows that only 22% of graduate recruits starting work in 2019 said they would be interested in staying at their company until retirement, 8% for over 10 years, 10% 6 to 10 years, 15% 4-5 years, 22% up to 3 years and 24% were “not sure”.

According to Nikkei Business, in their special feature on the myths of why young people quit, the reality is that because young Japanese people like the company they chose, they can’t bear to watch it decline. The Nikkei gives an example of an anonymous new graduate recruit who left her company after 3 years. She had studied abroad, had good language and communication skills and a strong interest in human resources. She thought working for a Japanese manufacturer had a romantic appeal, and the HR department wooed her heavily. Her reasons for quitting were that the general manager level was resistant to change, and when a new President took over, the direction of the company turned 180 degrees, making her worry about the lack of corporate governance.

Myth 2 Young Japanese lack perseverance

“They immediately complain when work gets tough”

The Nikkei points to a survey of managers of people in their 20s and early 30s which discovered that most managers thought that a much higher proportion of their team were proactive and willing to take up challenges than were not.

If anything, it’s the bosses who do not persevere, says Nikkei Business. They cite a young employee who quit a major insurance company in 2019 after 4 years who said that he was was highly motivated by tough challenges. He had looked forward to putting his energies into sales, but was repelled by how his boss – who took no responsibility and only thought about promotion – was so well evaluated.

Myth 3 Young Japanese quit because their pay is too low

“They prioritise pay because they are worried about their future”

A survey by Japan Net Bank in 2017 showed that 21% of 18-25 year olds did not expect to earn more than their parents over their lifetime, and 43% thought it was unlikely that they would do so.

Nikkei Business comments that the key concern of young Japanese employees is whether their job has meaning, and is of value. It quotes a young bank employee who thought that by working for a regional bank, he could support local businesses. However he did not see the point of the products he was selling and his request to transfer to a different department was refused. So he quit after 7 years.

Myth 4 Young Japanese quit out of youthful impetuosity

“They don’t have any responsibilities, so they quit on impulse”

It is true that Japanese are marrying later than before (75% of men are unmarried at 29, over 60% of women), so family responsibilities do not weigh so heavily on people in their 20s. “If I think about my future, I care more about how I am valued outside of the company than inside” says one high flier who quit a very prestigious trading company job. He had hoped to use his corporate finance and accounting skills and venture capital experience to help people in emerging markets. However he was placed in a division which did not make use of his expertise and was unexpectedly asked to transfer to another area.

Myth 5 Young Japanese quit because of too much overtime

“They want to have an easy life and hate overtime”

“I’m happy to do overtime, if I feel it’s adding value to the world” says a young Japanese rising star who quit her company after 2 years. She thought the company seemed very diverse and liked the way board level directors were involved in recruitment. However after an exhausting worklife, she felt she would be better in a job where she really felt she was contributing to society.

It’s hard to see any major cultural difference or something uniquely Japanese about this mismatch. I have vague memories of similar frustrations and worries when I was a young person thinking about joining a big multinational organisation after university 30+ years’ ago.

The dangers of going for the obvious solutions

The second part of this feature goes on to look at what Japanese companies could do to improve retention, and points out that the tactics that are usually proposed may be mistaken.

For example, thinking that there should be more 1:1 meetings between younger staff and their bosses could just increase frustration, if nothing is done as a result of the meetings. Having a system whereby young staff can request transfers is also pointless if the transfer is not approved, and often the dissatisfactions continue even in the new role. Internal commendations can also feel hollow, mentors often fail to turn up for mentoring meetings and simple pay rises don’t address key concerns about personal development either. Talking up the bright future of the company can also seem like just so much hot air.

More innovative approaches to retention

Nikkei Business recommends more innovative approaches, to address the fundamental reasons young people leave their companies. They point out that even good contributors, or employees who were reasonably happy in their work quit their employers, for reasons which are more to do with wanting to expand horizons, develop specialist knowledge or skills, or to have a job which better fits their lifestyle.

One recommended approach is to transfer young people abroad, or to more challenging environments. I would add a note of caution here, which is that I have often seen young people enjoying the freedom and challenge of living abroad, and then not wanting to return to their traditional Japan HQ, and quitting. Nikkei Business also suggests an “intermediate” mentor – closer to the junior employee in age and seniority, who acts as a go-between with the more senior mentor. Finally they recommend using AI to understand the motivations and fit of the person with various job roles.

I would add to this that Japanese companies might need to consider setting up continuing professional development associations similar to the ones we have in the UK – whereby members advance through a professional hierarchy through self study and examinations, in professions such as HR, accounting, finance, IT etc. Then, even if the company cannot offer them roles which have an instant career development impact, young employees can gain satisfaction from developing their knowledge and skills, supported by their employer.

Last updated by Pernille Rudlin at 2022-06-21.

Corporate Governance

Category: Corporate Governance