It will be helpful to be able to compare the Japanese consensus-building procedures with those of another group in order to establish whether or not the terms consensus and consensus-building are understood the same by different sets of people. In order to accomplish this, I will refer to the Quaker method of decision-making as practiced by Earlham College. This is easily done since I have observed and have had the opportunity to partake in consensus-building while being a student at Earlham. What will emerge from this study will be the sense that on the surface, the Quakers and the Japanese do implement similar tactics to reach a decision, but if one were to observe with a microscope, the final outcome is not exactly the same.

Exploring the decision-making process in Japan requires not only observations from within the Japanese society and business community, but also how and if the same techniques are used with Japanese multinational firms and even American firms. It will be seen that the Japanese are a very traditional society, and therefore prefer to utilize their tactics not only on their soil, but abroad as well. What this will prove is that the Japanese are not nonchalant about their beliefs in decision-making, that the process is very important, and therefore should be practiced amongst all Japanese companies no matter what their location.

Through psychology, it will be discovered why there are so many ambiguities in Japan. The presence of this abstruseness within the decision-making process creates a mystery, but by understanding some basic fundamental elements of the Japanese culture and society, the haze will begin to dissipate, and again, a more clear understanding will emerge. The Japanese designed a system where by following the proper channels, and acknowledging the respect that the varied levels of seniority represent, the outcome will be tilted toward success, rather than failure.

From the beginning of the process to the end, there are definite ways to achieving the desired ends. From the pre-meetings, to the informal parties, the Japanese style of doing business will take the shape of an intricate spider's web, where few outsiders can fully understand the implications of what exactly is occurring. Japanese culture effects every aspect of daily life. The cultural tradition of Japan reflects a strong desire to be harmonious, efficient, and most important, to promote group solidarity, and this is best achieved by making decisions based on consensus. Robert Marshall elaborates by saying that, "...group decision making in Japan promotes unanimity in result through consensus" {Marshall},[p. 7].

The core of my research is to examine Japanese business practices and to establish exactly how ringi-sei (bottom up decision-making), nemawashi (informal consultation, behind the scenes politicizing) and ringi-sho (circulated ideas through departments before final decision) effect the decision process in Japanese organizations and companies. These ideas are evident in almost all decisions made in Japan, and they are done in a certain way and have a certain outcome that is foreign to anyone but the Japanese. The hope is to unravel the way each of these practices are implemented in Japan, how they are factored into the final decision, and also to discover who exactly made that decision.

Before probing into the unknowns of the decision-making process, it would first be wise to discover what the basis is for decisions made today. This is best accomplished by taking a brief look at certain aspects of Japanese history and culture that have shaped the Japan of today. There have been major shifts in Japanese history, its past rules its present and future. The traditions that the Japanese adhere to are strong bonds, with which American culture cannot easily compare {Durlabhji 1993}. At first glance it looks as though Japan has gone through many identity crises. The most distinguishable would be the transition made between the Tokugawa Period {Edo} 1602-1868 and the Meiji Restoration beginning in 1868.

Japan is an island nation which creates an independence that is different from the U.S. So when looking at a period of isolation, such as during Edo, it is not amazing to see why the country began to rely on only its own people, resources, and competence to achieve goals, and to maintain a standard of living. From this, a family was created, where all involved contributed to the final outcome. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Japanese of today are viewed as extremely group oriented, not only by foreigners, but by themselves as well. It was noted that Japan's main production, rice, is a good example of how this interlocking family effect works. Rice production did not only depend on one person doing the work, it also required the use of all members of the family, and to an extent the family branched out and included the whole village. It was not uncommon for a community to be hit hard if one family's yield was not what it should have been.

This reliance on group help has been transformed and utilized today as well in the business community and in the government. There are several characteristics that all aimed for while living in their communities. The establishment of "groupism" carried with it certain factors such as, "total lifelong membership. . . selfless devotion. . . discipline and seniority-based rank. . . [and] harmony and concerted efforts" {Durlabhji 1993}[ p. 22-23]. To an outside observer and novice to the Japanese way of life, this seems to be the core of how Japanese businesses are run today, and in actuality, this is just one part of a sophisticated whole.

The rank system that grew out of Edo is astonishingly similar to that of today as well. Take for example the make up of the community. It consisted of the main body, or the community as a whole, but was dissected into sub-communities, where harmony is good and therefore the competition among group members is diminished. Yet, how this might create a consensus result is questionable to observers, leaving them wondering how decisions were actually made. There existed two sides to the coin in the decision-making process during the Edo period, that of management through either an authoritarian means or through group participation. "However, [the] men of authority did not use the arbitrary, one-sided decision-making process of despot kings or autocratic company presidents" {Durlabhji 1993},[ p. 23]. The elders might have appeared to make the final decision, but in most cases the various cabinets met to discuss the possibilities beforehand, much like nemawashi today.

The Meiji Restoration and the Occupation, brought with them changes that would forever alter how Japan was seen by the West. Opening Japan to outside influences gave the country the opportunity to advance into the industrial age, which would effect how decisions were made. A period of 250 years of isolation had ended and Japan opened its doors to the West to allow the flow of information to begin to be assimilated into the culture. No longer did Japan rely solely on its own resources, it now looked to bring knowledge from all corners of globe into its borders. Companies were being founded on Western ideals, but this did not entirely create a new Japan. The change from feudalism to a more modern nation was a significant step in the history of Japan, but evidence of the past remained. The Japanese still wanted to maintain many of the old traditions associated with the Tokugawa Period, so the ideas of respect, harmony and group belonging were retained.

The system of Japanese management practices

was created intentionally and systematically to

make the new corporate organizations resemble

the successful close-knit communities of the past

despite their moderninity, rationality, and artific-

iality {Durlabhji 1993} [p. 27].

A very important aspect of Japanese culture deals with that of psychology. When logically looking at what influences decision-making in Japan, one must wonder about the relationship between individualness and group dependence that exists in Japan. Doi, a noted Japanese psychiatrist, stated that the "Japanese are less eager to state personal opinions than to form consensus..." {Fetters 1995}, [p. 376]. From this a dependence (amae) on the group is born, where from that, a set of twins are born, tatemae and honne. These two terms are the backbone of much that occurs in Japanese society. Tatemae is the outer, social self, and honne is the inner more private self. These two are used when most appropriate in a given context. I can recall several times in Japan where my heart wanted to go one way, but realization that if that were to occur, my loyalty to the group would be put into question, and in order to stray from possible ostracism, which is not something to be grappled with, I utilized my tatemae. Thus, when conflict occurs between what one feels and what one shows, they must think about how their actions will affect how they are perceived by the entire group.

The individual and the group have been seen to play a major role in Japanese society for centuries, and probably will continue to for as long as there is a Japan. It is a culture that is not individualistic and therefore, would rely on the group for a number of things, from support, to help in the decision-making process. A family in Japan consists of more than just the immediate family, it also involves the company and the country. This is why much is done in a group, so it follows that the group has a great affect on decisions, and indeed they do, which is why nemawashi and ringi-sei exist. These two tactics allow input from many sides within the decision-making process, and hinders any one individual from taking sole action.

If one were to take a survey of non-Japanese and asked them to describe in one word what they feel best describes the Japanese society, the term groupism would probably appear quite frequently. Many would say that there is the appearance that the Japanese do not even have a self. "Japanese individuality...rests not on the imposition of one's will on the social environment but on the refusal to impose oneself on it" {Lebra 1976},[ p. 43]. This could be why only 36.3 percent of Japanese have a propensity for an individual work method over team-oriented styles {Hayashi 1988}. Yet, the question remains as to why the difference exists between the individual and the group. Why is "the group" so much more important than the person?

One answer is that if the final decision, and the process that led up to that decision, were to be left in one or two people's hands, then the responsibility would fall onto those individuals only. But, if there is a group involved in the decision-making process, then a sort of collective responsibility emerges. A worker must ask him or herself a question every time a decision is to be made: Is this in the best interest of the company? If it is, then there is somewhere to advance, if not, then an evaluation of why the proposal was looked at in the first place needs to be examined.

Let's take as an example of the "no blame" theory. An incident at the Tokyo War crime trials following World War II is a good illustration as to how collective responsibility works in Japan. Many soldiers and members of the government were questioned as to who gave the orders. Many, if not most, responded by saying nothing. No one individual said, "Nakamura-sama told me to do it!" The identification of individuals was rarely done, which protected any one person from taking sole blame for something that the group participated in doing {Hayashi 1988}. This might seem like an extreme example, but the fact lies in this: if a soldier is willing to give up his life for the good of the army, then it is easy to see that a member of a business can be compelled to do the same. To the Japanese, the name of the game is sacrifice -- the protection of the group from harm.

Nemawashi is a critical aspect of consensus-building in Japanese organizations, and the definition of it can be loosely translated several ways, such as consensus-building, behind the scenes politicizing, or informal consultation and conversations {Fetters 1995}. With the differing definitions, it is not amazing that confusion emanates from the term consensus. At times it takes on the appearance that nemawashi is simply everyone discussing prior to a formal meeting, at others it appears that a distinct division exists between those involved in the decision and those not. Both are correct. Yet, one thing remains constant, it is a part of consensus decision-making. Kitti Kosavisutte cites nemawashi as "informal solicitation of agreement before formal submission of approval at a meeting" {Kosavisutte 1997}. The author also uses the term consensus-building in the definition. From my research I will offer this definition. Nemawashi: a tactic implemented by the Japanese to bring about consensus through various pre-meeting consultations, where a strong foundation is being built so that the result will create a general agreement amongst those involved in the decision.

Literally, nemawashi means to tend to the roots. In the context of business, this is utilized so that a company is built from the bottom-up, like the term ringi-sei suggests. Once the roots are secure the rest of the tree may then begin to grow. When the tree reaches maturity, the decision is made and the outcome is hopefully what all wished for. Occasionally a tree may have trouble getting enough water to grow, and an idea never makes it, and this is a direct result of some problem with the roots. They were either not able to get the water, or somehow they were cut, which resulted in the death of the tree. From this, one can see how very important nemawashi is to have a positive outcome, without it, the decision may never sprout.

The important thing to remember is that nemawashi is used to allow the free flow of ideas between people, who might never have the opportunity to speak publicly about a proposal. Michihiro Matsumoto {1988} expands on this by stating that after-hours discussions are almost always a part of nemawashi, and that it is at this time where people feel most at ease. Here, patience is a virtue. To concentrate on the task and allow for it to work itself out will create the possibilities for success in the future, not only for the project, but for the employee as well.

Nemawashi serves several purposes in Japanese society. During these informal sessions, players are invited to discuss their opinions on a project openly, without the stress of doing so in a formal meeting where it appears that there is a boss and employees. Nemawashi offers participants the chance to openly discuss their feelings about a proposal without the fear of being shot down by his or her peers. Fetters states that, "the two parties can iron out differences without fear of losing face in front of peers" {Fetters 1995}[ p. 376], which increases the ability for all involved to reach a consensus decision.³ The process helps to eliminate any fears that a loser might arise, and then form fractions where different departments could be pitted against one another.

On the outside it appears as though nemawashi allows the opportunity for free speech time, where no big problems are going to erupt; yet, one must wonder if a certain amount of underhanded activity occurs. The concept of nemawashi is not just one focused on in the business sector, it plays an important part in the political arena as well, where it can be seen how hierarchy plays a role in decision-making. Fetters continued this thought by saying, "because nemawashi has a prominent profile in political decision-making, there is an associated nuance of underhanded behavior" {Fetters 1995}[ p. 376].⁴

The process involved in making nemawashi work properly is no easy task, and it takes all to work hard and toward the desired goal. Drawing on a Japanese author, Fetters {1995} notes that there are seven key factors in decision-making with nemawashi to remember:

1. Secure the complete cooperation of directly affected superiors;

2. When possible seek the input of directly affected superiors, and secure the cooperation of the most influential person on the decision making committee;

3. Construct in concrete terms a readable and understandable synopsis of the proposal;

4. Improve your own capacity to a high enough level to catch the attention of the most powerful individuals to participate in the decision, and always do your best to produce satisfactory results that will be recognized within the division and corporation;

5. Secure the understanding and cooperation of sections with decisive association with the contractual agreements;

6. Anticipate opposing opinions and doubt, and seek the agreement of individuals with those opinions: it is most important not to arouse in them feelings of defeat,

and

7. Seek the broad understanding of unaffected divisions and in a readily understandable way attempt to gain their agreement {Fetters 1995}[ p. 377].

Where better to see this in action than with Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT). In 1987, NTT began to change the way its computer systems worked {Nagano 1993}. It moved from a time-sharing mainframe system to a networked one that covered all of the country, with over 6,000 workstations. Achieving this outcome became no easy task for the company, and in order for the successful completion to occur, certain methods had to be executed, one of which was nemawashi. In this context, nemawashi helped to ensure that fractions did not arise among the ranks. An article in The American Programmer stated that one employee said, "'We have a good experience on DIPS [a network environment], we don't need such a toylike workstation environment, and we don't believe what the newcomers from the labs say" {Nagano 1993}. This employee is a member of the team, and therefore very valuable to the successful completion of the task, so without the concept of nemawashi, this employee would not have had the opportunity to voice such concerns. Because he was able to do so, experts in the field were able to describe to him the benefits of such a workstation, thus neutralizing his reluctance to the change. This is precisely why nemawashi is consensus-building.

To probe even further into the idea of nemawashi, I refer to an experience that Fetters recalled. This example is a good way to see that the Japanese do not make exceptions for non-Japanese. If Fetters wanted to be a part of the business society, he had to follow the same line of channels that everyone in Japan does to see the completion of a project. Fetters main goal was to obtain permission so that he could conduct a research project in a hospital department involving physician interviewees about decision-making practices dealing with life issues. Preparation began a year in advance with the first step being to receive approval from the chair of the department he would be working in. Follow-ups were made with information being sent back and forth on what the project would entail. Approvals were sought from directors and other chairs, and when those were completed, the proposal was delivered to the Dean's desk, who reviewed the process and came to a decision: Fetters received manjouichi or unanimous consent {Fetters 1995}. Because of this consistent effort on behalf of Fetters and others who liked the idea, he was able to work on his project and see it to completion. Roughly 30 percent of the overall time of Fetters' enterprise was spent doing these beginning stages.

One might wonder if this is true nemawashi, and because Fetters is a foreigner, he probably experienced something different than the typical Japanese person would. That does not take away from the fact that Fetters did participate in the process, in fact he also took part in ringi-sei, which later will be identified as a major sub-component of nemawashi. Fetters commented on the process by saying that, "The decisions are not made from the top down, but...are gradually arrived at from the bottom up" {Fetters 1995}[ p. 379], which is ringi-sei.

A connection exists between nemawashi and ringi-sei, where both allow input from others so that decisions can be reached in a consensus fashion. Ringi-sei, or bottom-up decision-making, is vital to the whole decision process in Japan, it allows the proposal to get commented on before the meeting so that people can have the opportunity to think about the proposal and to tack on ideas. This is a viable method of targeting supporters while the various pre-meetings of the nemawashi process are not underway, or out of session. Okimoto and Rohlen {1988} summarize the ringi-sei method by demonstrating how a plan or idea moves vertically upward in the hierarchy. The contents are reviewed at each stage of the way, where improvements and adjustments are tacked on, so that by the time it reaches the hands of the top officials who have the ultimate say, every team and person involved has had the opportunity to reflect on the idea, and was able to share their concerns and enthusiasms with others. This eliminates the fear of dissenters or possible opposition.

What makes the process even smoother is the common sense that is present at each step. Ideas and plans are circulated (ringi-sho) between involved parties to see if the proposal has the appearance that it will be able to be passed on to top management. A plan that looks unsuccessful will remain at an idle position until something is changed to make it a feasible idea, which is where consensus will be more likely to occur.

When looking at ringi-sei, it is no wonder that Japan is termed a vertical society frequently by the Western world, which is why the term consensus is different in Japan then it is at the Quaker meeting. The relationship between parent and child, worker and co-worker, boss and employee are all vital in establishing certain behaviors within Japan. First, there is the senpai and kohai relationships, where the person labeled as the senpai is the elder. In this type of hierarchy there exists certain privileges that the senpai gets to experience, such as keigo or formal language. The Japanese language is intricate and very formal and informal depending on the conversation and who is being spoken to at the time. By simply listening to a conversation, and by not even seeing who is involved, it is apparent to the listener which speaker holds a higher status.

The existence of these two (senpai and kohai), is one reason as to why the nijikai, or second more informal party exists in Japan. It gives those who are of lower status to feel free to talk on a more personal level to those that are higher than them. At these times more can be discussed as to why a decision has been made without fear of retribution by the person in the senpai position. The possibilities of this type of interaction are endless. In addition, drinking a little too much with co-workers and the boss, which is not a bad thing in Japan, can create an atmosphere where it is plausible for barriers to break down as well. It has been seen that communication is very important in the decision-making process, but that does not only include verbal communication, but it also involves silence and other nonverbal methods of communicating.

If good communication skills are present at every level, then the process will flow much more readily than if they are absent. Conversations in Japan are on a totally different level than they are in the United States. Verbal language is used sparingly in many situations leaving the listener to decipher what is being said in other ways, such as gestures and tone of voice. March comments that "contrary to the West, Japanese culture places much more emphasis on indirect and economical communication" {March 1992}[ p. 96]. The nonverbal cues associated with a conversation are what make or break the likelihood of having a successful encounter. ⁵

The ability to determine and unravel the ambiguity in the Japanese language is possibly the hardest step to overcome in coming to a consensus-based decision. It involves the use of ishin-denshin or communication without words. There are key features to pay attention to when communicating in this manner, such as, "tone of voice, eye contact, silence, [and] body movements" {Graham 1984}[ p. 26]. If all of these are implemented in a fashion where they complement each other, the listener should be able to trust his shinyo, or gut feeling.

The frustration that might stem from that type of activity is not felt in Japan as much as one might assume. Nonverbal cues are an occurrence that is common and seen every day there. To be able to trust one's instincts and to have the ability to distinguish using no words is an art of the Japanese. Another art that is similar to this is haragei, or stomach art.

It is a negotiation technique which is completed on the basis that direct words between the parties involved are not used {Graham 1984}. It is the revealing of one's kokoro or heart or true feelings, but in a way that words cannot achieve. Kosavisutte clarifies haragei to mean, "intuitive decision making, going on a gut feeling, negotiating without the use of direct words" {Kosavisutte 1997}. A connection between this and tatemae and honne is linked, and it allows things to be revealed that are not appropriate for direct conversation. As one draws on this, it appears more and more that the Japanese refer to the use of psychology in their everyday life.

Before looking at how dissent is handled, it would be appropriate to have an outline of how typical decisions are reached in Japan, as related by Hayashi {1988}. Let us for example say that the Takada Company is trying to decide if they should send Akahito-san to the United States to help formulate a plan for selling their product abroad. The process would begin with nemawashi, the following step would likely be that of an official meeting, where the decision agreed upon during nemawashi is adopted and formally recognized. Next there would follow a formal party, where class barriers are dropped and executives mix with non-executives. The party also shows appreciation for the work that has been achieved, yet at this point those that have reservations about the decision do not discuss it. That is addressed at the nijikai, which was discussed earlier {Hayashi 1988}.

The question of dissent is important, but the answer might seem rather vague. If a Westerner were to sit in one of these meetings having no knowledge of the Japanese system, it would appear that all have gone along with the decision and no dissenters were present. Though this might happen on rare occasions as in America, it is not an everyday occurrence. According to Lebra {1976}, simply because there are no objections, it does not mean that all are in agreement. In fact, Hayashi states that, "although no objections on dissent are expressed at a formal meeting when a course of action is ratified, there are always some members with strong objections who have been forced to go along" {Hayashi 1988, p. 132].

What would happen if someone openly disagreed at a formal meeting, instead of taking up the reservations he/she had during nemawashi? The answer varies, but one might be that of murahachibu, or ostracism, which is a rarity in Japan. The existence of this can greatly affect the way a person lives and dies in Japan. It is much more harsh than anything that has been experienced in America. Japan is a country built on traditions and networks. One of those is the family, and as discussed earlier, the definition of family is one very different from that assumed in the United States, because one must remember that family in Japan incorporates not only that of the nuclear family, but also sub-families, like that of the neighborhood, workplace, temple, sewing club, etc. If one were to disgrace their employer by not following procedure, such as that outlined by Hayashi, he/she could be ostracized by the company "family".

Takie Lebra {1976}, notes that feelings are shared by the group, whether it be guilt, pain, or joy. Again, this groupism is such, that it affects the lives of every Japanese citizen in a wide variety of decisions. Doi points out that guilt is felt when there existed a fear of somehow affecting the group in a negative way {Lebra 1976}, which relates to the reason why ostracism is rare in Japan, and simply put, most try to avoid that most undistinguished outcome.

At this point a few loose ends need to be cleared up on the process of dissenting in decisions. As stated earlier, this does happen, and to illustrate this I will refer to a passage made by Abegglen {1973} on the topic of the bonus payment problem that affects many large firms in Japan. It would appear that certain employees might feel discriminated against since their payments might seem inadequate compared to others in the office, which would cause protests or gripes to surface. Abegglen's research proves the opposite of this. From the standpoint of complaints received by Japanese managers, not many arose. Surely one would think that some sort of dissatisfaction would surface, but the Japanese must remember: "Should the worker feel some resentment it must be directed against all of these people [section chiefs, foremen, branch chiefs, directors (basically those involved in seeing the decision through)] . . . And since he stands in a somewhat special relationship to the company, such resentment is neither easily mustered nor expressed" {Abegglen 1973} [p. 129}. Dissension would hinder the whole nemawashi process, and so an employee will keep his relationship with the company in mind when disagreement might arise.

The question of top management's position is important in deciphering the process to which a decision is decided, and what type of influence leaders have. Questions of influence, power, and imitation are vital to allow for a smooth decision-making process to be carried out. The differences in rank are a typical part of Japanese society, and the existence of senpai and kohai are certain links in a chain that hold together the fabric of Japan. There is a strong unit of influence that keeps those links from bending or corrupting, that of the boss or bosses, but the interaction of these people in the decision-making process varies from company to company.

With ringi-sho, one might stop and ask themselves if top management also will circulate ideas throughout, or do they just decide? Maybe both should be the answer here. The concerns lie more in the size of the company than in the individual in charge. Smaller companies tend to have fewer decisions made by consensus than larger ones. One reason for this might be because there is less employees and therefore, less need to hold informal meetings where all have the opportunity to be heard. Plus, it might be so that there are only a few employees, so the boss is really the only executive, which is why he/she would hold such great decision-making powers. Even in larger companies though, the boss greatly effects the whole decision process. The president of Denki Kogyo Company said, "Since I am founder, communication with executives is always perfect and therefore little opposition arises" {Sato 1984} [p. 82}. The employees of this company know the hierarchy and will follow it. It could be that the executive really likes an idea, and even if they do not, out of respect and loyalty, the employee will go along with the proposal. Again, this is not dissent, it is acknowledging a structure in Japan, where it is important to adhere to company demand for loyalty. There are those executives of companies that are rule makers, but this is really not the majority of the cases.

At the same time, Durlabhji and Marks {1993} point out that ringi-sho is implemented by top management, and they do partake in the decisions many times like their kohai would. They point out that there is a sense that top management is idle while departments apply the principle of ringi-sho, but in reality, during many instances, management will begin the process and wait for a general agreement to be made before they act on the proposal {Durlabhji 1993}. In a survey conducted by Sato and Hoshino {1984} of 64 company presidents, this question was asked, "When a plan you think necessary...is opposed by the majority of the managing directors, do you force your idea through or do you postpone making a decision in order to persuade them and make a final decision with less opposition?" {Sato 1984, p. 81} More than half (36) said they use persuasion. The process of nemawashi was cited as being used by the presidents as well. These informal conversations created a bond between the management and employees, where executives had no desire to oppose an idea unless there was fear that something was vitally wrong with it that surfaced during nemawashi.

But does the fear turn the other way? Employees and fear of their boss seems to be a universal phenomena. Possibly in Japan it is not fear, but more along the lines of respect by fear. Early on, distinctions are made between people, and a Japanese child understands where to use polite language and how far down to bow. It is a fact of life to respect the opinion of those older and more established than you if you live in Japan. Therefore, in my general opinion, I would argue that even though it may have the appearance that a employee may cower to his boss, in actuality he is showing respect, a concept sometimes lost in Western countries. The boss is aiding in the consensus-building project. He has influence, but in most instances does not like to force the decision, instead he/she works to create an understanding, where a trust is evident between employee and employer (those involved with the proposal), so that a proper decision can be made. Each party respects the other, and the boss realizes that during processes like nemawashi, much of the dirty work has been done, and that because of the trust, he/she is confident in the final outcome. The boss works to ensure that things get done, and to work with the employees to discover what is best for the company.

While outside their borders, Japanese business executives continue to follow their way of doing, from the systems of keiretsu to kaizen and to the implementation of nemawashi. Hoven, Valkenburg, and Heng {1994} conducted a study entitled, "Managing Information Systems Within Japanese Companies in Europe: An Empirical Study" where a total of thirteen companies of Japanese origin were evaluated in the Netherlands and Belgium. Informal rather than formal debates and meetings were dominant, and groupism and teamwork remained at the head of the drawing board. Kriger and Solomon {1992}, studied Japanese multinational corporations and discovered findings that would lead to a conclusion similar to Hoven and his associates. They comment that in order to attain a global competitive edge in the market, the Japanese tend to incorporate their subsidiaries into the decision making process, thus allowing them to share their input into the nemawashi methodology.

Egalitarianism amongst these MNC's is another aspect that the Japanese employer promotes within the company. A Japanese company, YKK, had a plant in England. In one part of the plant a noisy area existed, and instead of partitioning it off separate from the rest of the stations, the Japanese decided to allow the worker in that area to continue to do his work without the obstruction. Why? To maintain that everyone is working for a collective good, so therefore, the inconvenience of the noise is minimal to what would happen if the harmony of the group interaction would have been divided {Hayashi 1988}. Though, this is not a direct example of how consensus decision-making is used within the MNC's, it goes to prove that the Japanese want to maintain the characteristic business practices that built their empire. Yet, even though the surface appears to have nothing to do with decisions, it becomes evident that all revolve around each other. Without the groupistic team orientation, the outcome of a decision by consensus lessens. It is because of such ideology that such idiomatic traits continue to exist even though the company is no longer within its own borders. From Honda in Ohio, to Okaya in Indiana, to NTN Bower in Illinois, constant characteristics of traditional Japanese business practices are implemented by the Japanese executives and learned by the American workers.⁶

The Japanese utilize various consensus-building techniques to ensure successful completion of a project, from their own shoreline to any destination worldwide. Yet, various definitions of consensus and consensus-building exist. The term consensus means different things to different people. If one were to ask strangers on the street to give a definition of the word, there would probably be just as many definitions as there were strangers. This is precisely why it is important to compare several different views of consensus decision-making.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary states that consensus is "unanimity; agreement, especially in opinion; hence, general opinion" {Webster's 1983} [p. 388}. With this, it appears that indeed the Japanese are implementers of consensus, and with nemawashi in particular, they come to this consensus by having the pre-meeting discussions. Together they work on ideas and create an unanimity in the meeting when it is time to come to a decision. The dictionary definition does not approach how unanimity is accessed, and if pressure from above has any influence on whether this is true consensus. This is precisely why it is important to introduce the idea of consensus in a different light, that of Quaker consensus.

One can approach the subject of Quaker consensus in various degrees. By looking briefly at the spirit of Quakerism one can become familiar with what it means to be a Friend. Yet, for comparison purposes, I will look later into the process of the Quaker meeting that is practiced by Earlham College. Between these two insights into Quakerism, a clear understanding of the fundamental aspects of it should emerge.

George Selleck {1986} writes of consensus decision-making as a sense (much like shinyo), as well as a faith in the Holy Spirit to help bring about a "right" decision, one where all the consequences were weighed. "According to the Quaker method, decisions are reached not by voting nor gathering the majority opinion, but by gathering 'the sense of the meeting'" {Selleck 1986} [p. 7}. From this, unity in the meeting begins to emerge, and in an effort to not create a detailed hierarchical structure base, everyone in a Friends meeting comes in equal. In order to maintain then a constant track and frame of thought, a clerk is established.

The role of the clerk is of great importance to be sure that consensus is reached among the group. Certain key traits must be inherent within the clerk. Selleck {1986} states that first, he/she must not dominate the discussion; second, he/she must pay close attention to how the meeting is progressing along, so as to be sensitive to trends that will emerge throughout the discussion; third, flexibility and deftness are vital. If true consensus it to be reached, unity needs to be grasped, which not necessarily needs to be uniformity or unanimity. The Quaker process, therefore, is not an unanimous decision, but rather one where all come to a unity on the topic. In summation, Selleck writes that "the crucial difference between the secular method of human consensus or unanimous consent and the Quaker business method is that, while the former seeks to find a unity according to human wisdom, the latter endeavors to do so according to the leadings of the Spirit of God" {Selleck 1986} [p. 13}.

The essence of Quaker consensus deals with the person and the group seeking to find the Truth; the direct result of such effort is consensus (refer to Table A-1 p. 24). An idea that the

decision made is the best one at the time, and the unanimity, reflects a whole group effort, where

all have accepted the outcome or have already voiced their concerns and have made that clear. One can see from the table that ideas are circulated among committee members, and with time, ideas are sorted and the best are then left for reflection. Working with this type of consensus is not quite as simplistic as the normal definition of consensus suggested by Webster's. Table A-2 (p. 25) represents the same conferral process, where a sense of the nemawashi process is present

in the third stage at the point where information is shared prior to the formal meeting. Even though in various instances, aspects of Japanese methods and Quaker techniques appear to have similarities, what are the main differences between the two.

This is a more difficult question to answer, in fact, the answer will probably appear to be quite ambiguous, which again, is not new to the Japanese. The Japanese culture is collective and an intricate interwoven structure where a team orientation is engineered. The Japanese do not have a clerk, and their decisions are not based on seeking the Truth and the Light through faith in the Holy Spirit; yet, the group does work toward a truth, one that is best fit for the companies success. Similar facets between the two exist, but they are not strong enough to say that the Japanese and Quaker styles are the same. In fact, they are related, but much like second and third cousins are in the human sense.

To explain this, I will refer to the book Business Otsukiai. In Chapter 7 the author relays to the reader how decisions are reached. It is key when attending a Japanese meeting to know exactly what you are attending. True, this is a necessity in any case, but even more so in the case

of the traditional Japanese meeting. To begin with, the author makes note of several points that

should be adhered to in the meeting. Several of the important points are to understand the reason and goals of the meeting; to watch your language, basically know when to use formal and non-formal language; and most important, always remember to use nemawashi. Without it, the meeting will more than likely turn out to be a disaster. Thus far, it would not appear that a great difference has been proven between the two consensus', but the author continues by suggesting a seating assignment (refer to Table B-2 on p. 27). In looking at the table, it is obvious that a

distinct hierarchy is in existence. There is a Chairman, and people who might monopolize a conversation are not seated next to each other. The purpose of such a meeting though is not to consult, as much as it is to reassure everyone involved that nemawashi worked, and that basically a decision had been reached. This is not the time to be hostile or judgmental, but to be supportive of what seems to be group unanimity in a specific case. If all works well, an emergence from the meeting should produce a sense that consensus amongst the group was reached.

In probing further, there is more disparity between Quaker consensus and that of nemawashi or ringi-sei. Typically during a Quaker meeting, those that come have the opportunity to be involved in the discussion. In the Japanese business world, this may not be so. The departments directly involved are typically the key players present. It is from these key individuals that the process of nemawashi is implemented. In other words, by looking at it logically, a person trying to get approval for his proposal is not going to involve someone below him who would appear to be out of the loop in the nemawashi process.

In an effort to elaborate farther on the Quaker consensus model, I will discuss how Earlham College, founded by the Society of Friends in 1847, comes to make its decisions, using a specific example to illustrate the procedure. One of the faculty members is the clerk, and is therefore in charge of maintaining a smooth running meeting or discussion. Beginning in the fall of 1996, the school moved to a semester system from that of a trimester system, which the college had been on for quite some time. The switch was no easy task, and the decision process was tenuous to say the least.

In order to relate the story of how the semester switch came about, I will refer to a presentation give by Nelson Bingham, professor of Psychology at Earlham, and who was clerk during the trimester/semester discussions. Dr. Bingham begins by saying that the decision to move to semesters was not one that came about quickly, in fact the proposal was formally introduced in the late 1980's. The reasons for the concerns about the trimester system were abundant. Many faculty recognized that trimesters affected Earlham's interaction with other colleges and universities, from athletics to the ability for students to transfer into Earlham smoothly. It became evident that the calendar affected every aspect of the running of the college, and therefore much work would have to be done to ensure that the right decision was made. In order to provide the uplink for such an endeavor to proceed, it was decided that a task force would be established to look at the various pros and cons of switching. It was also decided that a four year moratorium would be sufficient time for everything to be brought together on the subject. During this time, not only will the task force be working, but faculty and administrative faculty as well will be reflecting on the proposed idea.

At any time the college could have proceeded with a vote, but instead the Quaker model was followed. Around 1990, about 50 percent of the faculty was willing to switch and 100 percent of the administrative faculty was behind the move to semesters. That more than likely would have produced a majority of almost 3 to 1 to make the switch. But 50 percent of the faculty is a large group to have concerns on the topic, so that is why the task force was implemented.

In the fall of 1994, the moratorium had expired and the question was brought up again at the faculty meeting. The task force put forth its proposal and then the faculty reviewed their findings. Passionate concerns and beliefs were placed on the line. Correspondence was key to successful completion of the project, so in order to establish linkage amongst all involved, it was decided that e-mail would be an appropriate way to have informal discussion, which is similar to ringi-sho. Dr. Bingham met with faculty one-on-one so that input from everyone was heard by the clerk, in order to allow him to understand when a consensus was being approached.

There was one faculty member that opposed the change, and there were others that had serious reservations. In the end, all but the one faculty member who opposed the switch joined the majority and came to a consensus that semesters would be better than the current trimester calendar. Now, the one faculty member who opposed did not stand in the way of the decision, instead he stood aside, and allowed that to be recorded in the minutes. The process of switching to semesters was no arbitrary decision. It took years of work by all faculty to come to a final conclusion, and thanks to the process, the transition currently is smoother than anyone had imagined it to be. Dr. Bingham noted that he had not seen such a strong sense of unity amongst the faculty before, and that because of the Quaker process, many fears had been laid to rest. This example is very similar to how nemawashi works. Informal and formal consultations took place at various levels to try and gain support for the proposal. After months of this, all resources were pulled together and the final decision was formulated.

Other ways that Earlham College exercises consensus decision-making policies are in the student judiciary committees. There is not just one person involved in the disciplinary process, but a number of individuals ranging from students to faculty. Together they decide on what steps need to be taken, if any. Consensus is more of a respect than a policy, and is an ideology that is based on Quaker fundamental principles. Consensus decisions are not independent from other bodies that formulate the Quaker heritage, from the American Friends Service Committee to the First Friends Meeting, consensus is an integral part of organizational decision-making.

It was loosely described in the Earlham College semester switch decision how dissent was handled in the Quaker meeting, but a little more detail needs to be given on the subject (Table A-3, p. 31). Dissent amongst Quakers is fundamentally different than that experienced by the Japanese. Quaker dissent is unique in that even if someone does not disagree, they can still allow the project to succeed. How can this occur, and what, if anything, can stop a project from completion?

Michael Sheeran {1983} relates in his book several different ways that dissent works within The Society of Friends. To an outside observer it would appear that Quakers are always in total agreement by the time the final resolutions are made, but in actuality, it is just that, an appearance. They do not come to unanimity, but unity, or in 1662 Friend Edward Burrough liked to use the word concord to describe how Quakers make consensus. It is harmony, where the at the end, everything falls together to create a masterpiece, hopefully.

There are several stages to coming to a decision on a matter that Sheeran discusses. First,

there is the preliminary stage, where basically brainstorming occurs. A project is introduced and the members look at the proposal and see if it is viable and whether there are obvious things being overlooked. In other words, it is a time to test the waters, so to make sure the ship does not sink at a later date. Next, a "serious discussion" would follow. Here, different parties can say whether they agree, or if they have not been persuaded enough, they can say that they simply cannot unite at this time. Notice that this is dissimilar to actual disagreement. The party is not saying that all is lost. Therefore, what if a party simply cannot support an action with total agreement? There are several methods of action that the party can adhere to applying.

First, if objection arises, more discussion will be implemented by all parties. The clerk might find him or herself working in small groups to see what exactly is at a disparity. In the end, if a party still is in disagreement, the most common action amongst Quakers to take is to go onto the minute as disagreeing but not standing in the way. This does not take away full responsibility from the outcome of the proposal, because even though the individual did not give 100 percent agreement, he/she still did not block the project from completion. There was simply issues about the idea that were not answered or corrected clearly enough for the individual(s).

A more serious step in the process of opposition is to go on record as saying, "Please minute me as opposed." This does not stop a project from going through, but it is permanently written that the party objected to the project/idea, yet they did not want to stop the rest of the members from allowing its passage. What then would be the course of action if an individual wanted to see significant changes made before passage?

More than likely they could delay action by saying that they are unable to unite with the presented position. This would in essence stop any immediate decisions to be made on the proposal. Steps that can be taken to see that a resolution can be made are to: 1)Persuade with respect, meaning to talk with the individual in a manner of decency and understanding. If this does not work than, 2)Try to encourage the person to change their statement to one of the other two so that the project may move on, and the individual is still recorded as not being in total agreement with what is being produced {Sheeran 1983}.

Within Quakerism, dissent is a workable aspect of any proposal. There exists clear steps as to the process that is dealt with when certain members see problems with an idea. In contrast, the Japanese methodology for dealing with dissent is vague and difficult to find any schematic system to dealing with lack of unity. This is where a big difference emerges between the two models. It becomes more evident that hierarchy, where influence from above, plays much more of a role within the Japanese society.

There is much to say about consensus decision-making across the globe. The Japanese like to conform with what would be best for the whole group, and Quakers as well see a need to listen to their heart so that all members are comfortable with a decision. Certain similarities exist between the two, such as each involving the use of informal consultations to gain support for an idea or project. Each group also likes to avoid coalitions if necessary, since these obviously hinder consensus decisions from being reached.

In terms of differences there are numerous instances where these occur. During dissent it is evident that the Quakers have a much more defined system to deal with those individuals that have concerns about a proposal. The Japanese on the other hand have less structure, and tend to be persuaded by the group so as to maintain loyalty to the company. The size of the Japanese company has a lot to do with decisions. Smaller companies tend to use consensus-building measures less than their larger counterparts. This is where another difference emerges amongst the Japanese and Quakers, the role of the executive.

The Japanese executive is looked at with respect and seen as a figure head of the company. His or her knowledge and desire for a project are taken with great seriousness. For to disgrace the executive is to disgrace the entire company. The Quakers role of an executive is different. He/she is part of the community, but he/she is also an executive, and there are times when conflict between being a community member and an executive come into play. Like other organizations, there are certain instances that arise that force a decision to be made by the executive without a consensus decision on the part of the whole community. Interim President Gene Mills of Earlham College had this to say about the issue, "... I will have to take a position, and I will do that as knowledgeably and as informed as I can be, with as much support as I would warrant, but I can't be sure that there will be a community consensus about it" {Kellogg interview 1997}. He continued by stating that for certain decisions that need to be made, he will not even go to the community for input.

It goes to show that in every organization there is a time where decisions need to be made, and support from the whole group is either unnecessary or simply cannot be met. From the Japanese to the Quakers, consensus decision-building and making is important and vital, but not always attainable or desired. These instances vary, but they are typically in the minority of decisions that take place.

A final difference between the two groups is that of the person who oversees the whole process. In the Quaker meeting there is the clerk, and in the Japanese consultations there is no clerk. In Japan, the people in charge are affiliated with the department or section that developed the idea. If the boss has a strong interest, then he or she will also play a pivotal role in the whole process.

Consensus-building techniques play an important role in institutions worldwide. One must remember that Japan's present is ruled by its past, and that the group is the family. Traditions are evident in both the Quaker heritage and the Japanese, and both like to see completion of a project, so that everyone involved in the decision are happy with the final outcome. In both cultures a saying exists, korogaru ishi ni koke musazu, which translates into -- a rolling stone gathers no moss. Perseverance pays off, and with patience a proposal can become a reality.

© Quaker Foundations of Leadership, 1999
Earlham College
Richmond, IN 47374
USA
Please request permission to use here.
 

ENDNOTES