M&A

Virtue or vice? “Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” – Japan HQs in the Year of the Monkey

We have decided to celebrate in 2016 – with a series of lunch seminars for clients – the 12^th anniversary of the founding of our company. The excuse is that we have completed the full cycle of the Japanese/Chinese years, back to the Year of the Monkey.

Reflecting on the trends we have seen evolving over the past 12 years for Japanese companies, the most obvious development has been the increase in major acquisitions by Japanese companies of Europe-based multinationals. Most recently, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Group acquired UK Lloyd’s underwriters Amlin for £3.5bn and Hitachi has just finalised the acquisition of AnsaldoBreda and Italian company Finmeccanica’s stake in Ansaldo STS, for around €800m.

Both these acquisitions are representative of a structural change I have seen evolving in quite a few Japanese multinationals. Hitachi has moved the global headquarters of its rail business to the UK and it seems the Japanese insurance majors, who have all now acquired underwriting firms based in the UK, are hoping that their acquisitions will act as pivots for further global expansion.

Clearly Japanese companies are not just buying into a market with their acquisitions, but hoping that they have also acquired global management capability. Whereas in the past there were some examples of Japanese companies using their US subsidiaries to manage the global network, it seems now that Europeans are being asked to manage operations in the US and beyond.

This is partly due to another long term trend in Japan, which is the lack of “global jinzai”, particularly at senior management level, to manage overseas growth, but it also reflects the fact that European multinationals are used to managing companies scattered across many countries, in a virtual matrix structure. This means the heads of various business units or functions may not all be physically located in the same headquarters. European managers need to have strong, globally effective professional expertise but also good cross cultural communication skills to be able to manage teams remotely.

Europeans are comfortable with doing this in Europe and to some extent working with the US too. However working with Japan is still a new experience for most of them. They are often baffled by the fact that their professional expertise and remote communication skills are not enough to persuade or win support from Japan headquarters. Managers in Japan headquarters are only used to communicating with people who are physically present in the office. They tend to be generalists, who do not find arguments grounded solely in expert opinion all that convincing.

Unless conscious effort is made to overcome these communication barriers, Japan headquarters maybe behave like the three monkeys, who see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. In Japan my understanding is that this is seen as virtuous behaviour. However, in the West this is seen as ignoring problems and misbehaviour until it is too late. I foresee the next twelve years of my business as being about opening eyes, ears and mouths on both sides of the world.

This article originally appeared in Japanese in the Teikoku Databank News on 13th January 2016 and iis in the introduction of “Shinrai: Japanese Corporate Integrity in a Disintegrating Europe” by Pernille Rudlin, available on Amazon as a paperback and ebook.

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。

The Suntory revolutionary from Mitsubishi Corporation

Takeshi Niinami is probably the most famous alumnus of my alma mater, Mitsubishi Corporation. Born in 1959 and a graduate of Keio (as so many Mitsubishi ‘gentlemen’ are), he started off in sugar trading and after a Mitsubishi Corp sponsored MBA at Harvard, he was involved with the foundation of the Sodexo joint venture in Japan with MC, and then transferred to and ultimately ran the convenience store chain Lawson, which MC had acquired a majority share in.

He was lured to the family run Suntory in 2014 by the grandson of the founder, Nobutada Saji, and has been shaking the place up ever since, much to the consternation of many employees. The revolution was already underway, as Suntory had already announced its $16bn acquisition of US whisky maker Beam and the year before had acquired the UK brands Lucozade and Ribena from GlaxoSmithKline for $1.35bn and in 2009 acquired Orangina Schweppes for $1.97bn.

A former director who worked with him at Lawsons says “there are people who cannot keep up with him. He keeps coming up with new things, and then says do it within a year”. Niinami believes that Suntory will not be able to function well as a global company if it only promotes from within, so has appointed Vincent Ambrosino, formerly CFO of Pepsico Canada as an Executive Officer of Suntory Holdings, in charge of strategy, finance and accounting. He only joined Beam in 2013 as the CFO so this by Japanese standards was seen as meteoric rise to a top position.

Furthermore, Makiko Ono, one of the rare senior Japanese businesswomen in a major company, who had been involved with various collaborations with foreign companies as executive officer of Suntory Food & Beverages, has transferred to Suntory Holdings, to become the GM of global HR. Around 17 people from Suntory Holdings will be seconded to Beam Suntory, with the aim of improving global mobility. Niinami himself announced that he wants to hire more people from outside the company, “including those who have investment experience who were in trading companies” – hiring in his own image, in other words.

Suntory Holdings mid term plan has highly ambitious double digit targets for turnover and profit. It is unlikely this will be reached organically, says Toyo Keizai magazine. More M&A can be expected. Niinami is not likely to slow down.

Japanese companies need to pull up younger burdock roots if they really want to grow globally

Along with “tako tsubo” (octopus pot), another Japanese concept “gobou nuki” (plucking out burdock roots) used in HR has been deemed harmful to corporate Japan’s global prospects.

The term has been used frequently in the Japanese media recently, according to Masahiro Kotosaka, an ex McKinsey consultant now at Ritsumeikan University. In a recent article in Nikkei Business Online he points out that the recent appointments as President of Takuya Hirano at Microsoft Japan, Tatsuo Yasunaga at Mitsui & Co, Koji Arima at Denso, Tatsuya Tanaka at Fujitsu and Takahiro Hachigo at Honda have all been described as plucking burdock roots, as they are in their 40s or 50s, younger than normal for Presidents in corporate Japan. The average age of Japanese Presidents was 62 in 2014 (up from 61 in 2013), around 10 years higher than the global average.

The older age is of course partly explained by the continuation of seniority based pay and promotion in Japan – although Panasonic, Sony and Hitachi have all recently announced they are abolishing or looking to abolish this system.

The average age in Japan for a “kacho” (section head, the first managerial position in Japanese companies) is 38.6 and 44 for a “bucho” (department head, or General Manager) according to Recruitworks. In India, China or Thailand, the average is 9 years lower for kacho and 10 years lower for bucho. Even the US average is 5 years lower for both positions.

Kotosaka asserts that Japanese companies need to start pulling out younger burdock roots, people who might be future executives, and making sure they have early leadership experience. If this does not happen, the younger generations of Japanese will soon feel a big gap with their overseas peers.

Already Kotosaka has heard (as I have) from Japanese companies that they feel the utilisation of non-Japanese or external executives has increased and the presence of Japanese executives has faded.

The most notable example is of course Christophe Weber, President of Takeda Pharma, and his team of 16 executives, of whom 8 are non-Japanese and have come from outside the company and two are non-Japanese who joined through being executives in a Takeda acquisition. Weber had his first leadership experience at the age of 29 when he became a country manager at GSK. Carlos Ghosn of Nissan also became head of a factory at the age of 27.

My former employer Mitsubishi Corporation is mentioned as an honourable exception to the lack of experience given to juniors, along with gaishi (foreign owned) consulting companies and private equity firms. For such companies, people are the main asset, and it’s true I suppose that trading companies such as Mitsubishi that have now moved more towards acquisitions rather than trading, do afford ample opportunity for younger Japanese to take up management positions abroad. In practice though, I have seen many instances where the acquisition is left to manage itself, and the Japanese expat director mostly stays in the regional headquarters, processing paperwork to send back to Japan HQ, rather than hands on managing the business.

We will transform Takeda into a global company within 5 years

Christophe Weber, President and COO of Japanese pharmaceuticals company Takeda, responds to “7 Questions” in the Nikkei Business magazine:

1. You announced your new strategy in October?

I spent the past 8 months since I joined Takeda [from GlaxoSmithKline] talking to various employees, from which I have reached an understanding of Takeda’s strengths and weaknesses. The strategy is to support Takeda in becoming a global, R&D led company. The structure needs to be changed to become more effective, and to develop global minded human resources.

2. How long is needed for this transformation?

I am expecting it to take 5 years. We will focus the structure on the 4 disease areas of R&D strength in Takeda such as oncology and gastroenterology and also vaccines. We will join up the R&D functions which are distributed across various countries, and strengthen their links to improve their efficiency at the same time , as well as their agility.

3. Doesn’t globalization go against becoming more agile?

It’s true that globalization can cause the organisation to become more complex. However each R&D region will be given responsibility and decision making powers. Sales channels will also be delegated more decision making authority. This should enable them to have a degree of agility and for us to grow as a global company.

4. To be a truly global company, you need to expand in developing markets?

We bought the Swiss company Nycomed in 2011. Nycomed has strong sales channels in Russia, China and Brazil. We will develop these further, to sell drugs that we have been selling in Europe and North America. Developing markets are reforming their healthcare, and this will grow rapidly in the next decade.

5. The majority of your management team come from outside Takeda. Why are so few executives from within Takeda?

I expect to hire people from outside Takeda only when there are no suitable candidates within. If there are too many external hires, it gives the impression that we are not developing our own people sufficiently. Takeda currently lacks people with global experience. We are currently thinking how to develop more globally minded people.

6. You attracted a lot of attention as a foreign executive when you were appointed President in June?

It is still rare for a non-Japanese to run a Japanese company and it is a difficult job. However, when Chairman Hasegawa called me to talk to me about this, I thought it was a challenge I wanted to take up. Mr Hasegawa has a strong will to take on the world. I felt he was a fellow spirit.

7. There was some opposition to you as a foreign President from shareholders?

There were many opinions expressed, and I listened to them with respect. It is to be expected that there will be some negative reactions when a foreigner takes on this big a reform. History will judge whether this reform is correct. I was at my previous company for more than 20 years, so I am different from other foreign CEOs who change companies every few years. I have a similar character to the Japanese in that I value stability.

Japanese management by telepathy and Ninja skills does not work for overseas M&A

The precis below is from an article written by Chieko Matsuda (Executive Director of Booz Allen Hamilton in Japan) for Nikkei Business Online’s “Corporate Governance for Everyone” series, in Japanese, but I felt as I translated it, that it was my own words, so completely do I agree with what she is saying:

Japanese companies often have an “overseas business development unit” to carry out their global M&A. However the mission of this organisation should change depending on the stage reached in expanding overseas. Even if it starts as “business development”, it often turns out that it has to manage the subsidiaries as well. So at the same time as stepping on the accelerator to grow the business, it is supposed to press on the brake, as a shareholder and auditor. When it comes up with solutions to this dilemma, nobody will help the unit out, claiming that “overseas business is your specialist area”, and “nobody speaks English in our unit”

The audit function needs to be strengthened – Japanese companies are far too weak when it comes to risk management with regard to their overseas operations. It is necessary, if expanding overseas, to “control through structure” and review rules, processes and formats. Japanese style management through telepathy will not work for overseas M&A.

In order to design the structure in detail, it is necessary to decide on the direction. What the company should not do, and what it should preserve. If this is left vague, then it will lead to a sense that “we have no idea what the parent company is thinking”.

The top priority therefore is to set the corporate mission and values. What are we trying to do, how will we do it, which way are we facing – it is control through corporate culture as well as through structure.

The corporate vision needs to be concrete, and something that can be translated in an understandable way into many languages. It should be a base for making decisions – to go left or right – not just pretty words.

If the corporate vision and culture is not secure, then it is difficult for diversity to take root. WIthout diversity, the company will not be competitive. A homogenous workforce was efficient for labour intensive production, but we are now in an era of competition of ideas and innovation. New ideas and innovation require a diverse workforce, and what will unite a diverse workforce is common corporate culture and vision.

It is of course partly up to the top management to communicate this corporate culture and vision, but middle management must also be able to use it within their teams. It can’t just be about “reading the air” in the traditional Japanese Ninja way. What do you do if there is a claim from a customer? It cannot be resolved through kiai (“fighting spirit”) and konjou (“guts”). Wouldn’t it be convenient if you had a touchstone, for when there was a problem to be solved?

If you are being acquired by a Japanese company, you may be interested in Japan Intercultural Consulting’s (represented by Rudlin Consulting in EMEA) post merger integration services.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries – feminise and foreign-ise to stop being fossilised

The cover story for the Nikkei Business magazine (JPNS) for October 20th 2014 is somewhat doom and gloom,claiming that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ reforms were too slow, and it’s now in the last chance saloon. The four part special includes an interview with the president, Shunichi Miyanaga, who has been leading the reforms and also a handy checklist so you can make sure your Japanese company hasn’t also become fossilised like MHI. One of the items on the list is whether “You have lots of Japanese expatriate staff, and the local hires view them as the secret police”

The online counterpart to Nikkei Business also has an interview with Christina Ahmadjian, an American who has lived in Japan for 17 years and is now a professor at Hitotsubashi University, who was appointed as an external, or “outside” as they say in Japan,director of MHI in 2012. She’s also on the board of Eisai, the Japanese pharmaceuticals company. Needless to say, she speaks fluent Japanese – and was also an “accidental Office Lady” in her past, at Mitsubishi Electric.

She termed MHI “super-Japanese” for its slow decision making and initially did not want to take up the role. Her friends cautioned her, saying there are plenty of other Japanese companies who are more advanced in their reforms that she should consider. However the then President and chairman took her presentation to the board very seriously, which led her to decide to “try it for a year, and quit if it didn’t work out”.

She continues this un-Japanese attitude by regularly asking in board meetings “who is accountable” and asks for specific commitments from anyone who uses the typical Japanese vague term “kento shimasu” (we will study this further). She also insists that strategic rather than technology related subjects are discussed in the board meetings.

President Miyanaga has also changed the board meetings, through reorganising the company into four domains, and decreasing the representatives accordingly to the board, which has allowed for smoother discussions. Ahmadjian says she is surprised by the speed at which Miyanaga has moved, and also how careful he is to share all information with her, including on any M&A activities. Previously, Japanese companies had been reluctant to involve external directors as they were concerned that confidential matters would be leaked.

Nonetheless, MHI is still slow compared to the foreign competition, she says. MHI is beginning to appoint non-Japanese to senior positions overseas but there is a lack of candidates internally. It’s not always the case that it is easier to get rid of people in foreign companies, she argues – in Europe the unions can be very strong and she suggests that some Japanese companies are using legal barriers as an excuse not to restructure, and are in fact “zombie” companies.

“I am a watch dog, making sure MHI do not slack off on their reforms” she concludes.

The 4 types of Japanese expat manager

Susumu Okamura, a veteran of Daiichi Life, DIAM in the US, UBS Global Asset Management and a Columbia MBA alumnus, believes experience of secondment to another company is a must for survival in the global economy. Thanks, however, to ‘Naoki Hanzawa’ (a TV series in Japan about a heroic salaryman banker), being seconded to another company has a thoroughly bad image in Japan. However in global companies, where spin off companies are multiplying, being seconded has become part of management development.

Foreign business people are particularly enthusiastic about being sent to manage acquisitions or struggling subsidiaries. They see it as a valuable chance to put their ideas into action and do things their own way, says Okamura.

Okamura views joining your first company as a second birth, with being seconded to another company as a third rebirth, but unfortunately many Japanese managers do not see it that way. Okamura sees four types of secondees:

The depressive – who has dropped off the elite track of the headquarters, so becomes disillusioned and loses his spark. However they are often given an important role in the subsidiary company, so they are the worst kind of boss for the employees of the subsidiary.
The look backer – who wants to make headquarters regret pushing him out by producing great financial results. Tries harder than the depressive, but his aggressive, inflexible management style can warp the subsidiary
The phlegmatist – has the same laid back style wherever he goes. Works steadily, doesn’t try to change anything.
Mindset changer – is thrilled at the chance to start a new chapter in a new organisation, pursuing new dreams

As Okamura says, in traditional Japanese companies, secondment damages your chances of becoming a top executive in the headquarters. “But I want to ask instead, is it really fun to stay in the headquarters? What are you learning which is of value in the marketplace? Do you think that value will still hold in 10 years’ time?”

“We are in the middle of a diversity boom. However, unfortunately in many cases, the foreigners, women, mid-career hires and the disabled that are hired all end up being ‘dyed the same colour’. It’s not obvious why diversity was such a reason for hiring people. But being seconded is different – there is an unshakeable diversity to having to become part of a different corporate culture.”

Japanese firms might gain from looking to outsiders for insights

At the beginning of our training sessions with Japanese expatriate managers, I describe to them the positives and challenges Europeans say they face when working in Japanese companies. If I have already done similar sessions with Europeans in that company, then I also highlight those aspects which are specific to the company or were give a particular emphasis.

You can probably guess what the common positives and challenges are. The European employees usually say they find their Japanese colleagues are polite/friendly/calm, take a long-term view and have a high degree of commitment to their jobs and the company. The challenges that they find are communication problems centering on indirect/direct communication styles and attitudes to conflict, and also the long-winded, nontransparent decision making processes.

It is often said that Japanese people are more than usually curious about how they are perceived by other cultures. Certainly my list of common positives and negatives arouses great interest among Japanese participants. However, when I try to turn it into a debate about the company’s culture – asking questions like, “Do you think your company is more or less nemawashi (consensus based decision making) oriented than other Japanese companies in your industry?” – there is hesitation, a few tentative comments, and then thoughtful silence. It is almost as if such questions had never been considered before.

As lifetime employment has been so prevalent in these large companies, and still is for the majority of employees, the opportunity to compare the company you chose to join at the age of 22 with another company only arises once – during the graduate recruitment process. Because this a career-long commitment, both the graduates and the companies put a great deal of effort into the process of finding out whether there is a good fit between the candidate and the company culture.

But the actual nuts and bolts of working in a company – how decisions are made, attitudes to process, risk, hierarchy and so on – are not made so explicit, because the candidates have never worked in a company before and have no way of identifying these characteristics. If you are going to stay at the company for the rest of your career, then you just accept that “this is the way things are done around here.”

Now that more Japanese people are changing employers, and mergers between companies are increasing, it is surely time to be more aware of these differences, so that adjustments can be made by employees and companies.

Some insights will of course come from the job hoppers themselves, but it might also be time for Japanese companies to lose their allergy to using outside consultants. As a consultant myself, I would say this, but consultants who have worked with a range of companies probably have the best overall view of how Japanese companies differ from each other.

As the British writer Rudyard Kipling famously put it, regarding English insularity, “And what should they know of England, who only England know?”

This article by Pernille Rudlin originally appeared in the The Nikkei Weekly

“Japan is different, but other countries are different, too” – Takeda’s Weber

Japan’s annual shareholders’ meeting season at the end of June went relatively smoothly for most companies, as their results had improved, in part due to the impact of a cheaper yen. Takeda was one of the exceptions, however, with the new President, Christophe Weber, facing protests from a 100 or so shareholders, more than half of whom were ex-Takeda employees.

Their 7 point letter claimed that the acquisition of Nycomed and Millennium Pharmaceuticals were failures, that the way Takeda was globalizing and the low morale of scientists in Japan called into question management effectiveness, that the way Weber was appointed as Hasegawa’s successor was questionable, that the focus on the executive management committee, largely peopled by “foreigners” was causing the board meetings to become a mere formality, that it was not clear why high dividends should be paid out when the financials were worsening, and finally that responsibility was not clear for the fine of $6bn in the US for concealing the risks for Actos, a diabetes drug.

Diamond Online analyses why Takeda is being criticised “from within”. Takeda was at a high point in 2006, but in decline since then, as four of its blockbuster drugs came off patent in the US. The search for new hit drugs led down the path of M&A. Takeda was the dominant Osaka pharmaceutical company, squaring up against Sankyo the Tokyo-based pharmaceutical giant. Behind the scenes, however, there were merger talks between the two. In the end Sankyo chose to team up with Daiichi.

So Takeda embarked on overseas acquisitions – Denmark’s Novo Nordisk and then Millennium in the USA in 2008, and finaly Nycomed in 2011. These acquisitions required substantial post merger restructuring, however there was noone capable of this in Takeda. The management layer below Hasegawa was “thin” ( a problem common to many Japanese companies, who cut back hiring of that cohort during the first oil shock). Hasegawa appeared isolated, and reliant on foreign executives and Japanese executives who had worked in foreign companies (in other words, not including the indigenous Japanese within Takeda)

Weber’s recent interview in the Japan Times, in which he emphasises that Takeda will remain “Japanese” is an attempt to reassure the Takeda founding family and domestic Japanese management, but whether an interview in English in Japan Times (an English language daily) is sufficient is doubtful. A charm offensive on the Nikkei group of publications might be advisable.

Hitachi’s new President, Toshiaki Higashihara Q&A

As blogged previously, Hitachi announced their new President and COO Toshiaki Higashihara, on January 8th. The Nikkei Business magazine’s Q&A with him in the 20th January edition asked him for his views on how Hitachi was going to grow, and what would change.

Higashihara emphasised “One Hitachi”, bringing together services, products and solutions to address customer needs such as energy saving and improving productivity. The differentiator for Hitachi against Siemens and GE being that in the infrastructure business, Hitachi can also bring ICT skills and solutions around cloud computing and big data.

A sense of speed is needed, he added, and this means that not all decisions should be made in Tokyo headquarters. R&D, purchasing and ICT systems should be looked at in a global context. He also made positive noises about further acquisitions.

What will remain constant is Hitachi’s 100 years of “monozukuri” (making things/craftsmanship) and SQDC: Safety, Quality, Delivery Time and Cost.

It seems Higashihara was close to current President Nakanishi (who becomes Chairman and CEO), as a kohai (protege) and also brings global experience – a masters’ degree in computer science from Boston University and was President of Hitachi Power Europe.

Category: M&A