The typical way of decision-making in Japanese companies is unanimous agreement, so the meeting is a formality. Before the meeting, subordinates of their bosses who attend the meeting adapt their bosses's opinion, so agreement is just valued in the meeting. I hear Japanese traditional companies's dicision-making is like that.
The typical way of decision-making in Japanese companies is unanimous agreement, so the meeting is a formality. Before the meeting, subordinates of their bosses who attend the meeting learn about their bosses' opinions, so agreement is just valued in the meeting. I hear Japanese traditional companies' decision-making is like that.
What do you think about this? To me, this doesn't seem like a good way to make decisions.
I have the same opinion as you.
I think perhaps discussions make us new view, and unanimous agreement maybe kill minority opinion. How is your country's one?
I have the same opinion as you.
I think perhaps discussions give us new views, and unanimous agreement maybe kill the minority's opinion. How is your country's decision-making process?
Is there a time when you have the different opinions with your boss in the case of the top-down?
Hmmm,that's case by case.
It's good to discuss if the theme in the meeting clearly.
For example, what is the goal of the meeting, what should we discuss to reach the goal.
If the discussion is proceeded along these, it's ok for me because I don't like discussions diverge here and there.
Is there a time when you have different opinions from your boss in the case of the top-down management style?
Hmmm, that's case by case.
It's good to discuss if the theme in the meeting is clear.
For example, what is the goal of the meeting and what should we discuss to reach the goal?
If the discussion proceeds along these, it's ok for me because I don't like discussions that diverge here and there.
2. we say "similar to" but "different from"
3. supply a noun to the adjective
4. there must be a predicate in the clause; "clearly" is just an adverb, so it doesn't really express anything clear here
5. use a conjunction to connect similar ideas
6. you are asking a question, so use a question mark
7. use the active voice because the subject is the doer, not the receiver of the action
8. use "that" to add information to something you just mentioned
Conversely, is there anything that is not good of top-down dicision making?
No, I am still a freshman.
- The traditions of Japan's feudalistic past have seeped into its current business decision making practices.（日本の封建的だった過去の伝統が、現在の意思決定の慣習を作った。）
- Some westerners have described Japan's business decision making model as too timid.（日本のビジネス意思決定モデルは臆病すぎると評する欧米人もいる。）
- The advantages of a conservative approach outweigh its disadvantages.（保守的なアプローチのメリットは、デメリットを上回るものです。）
- The unintended consequences of a faulty decision will weigh heavily on the CEO's mind.（誤った判断がもたらす予期せぬ結果は、CEOの心に重くのしかかる。）
- We prefer careful deliberation over reckless abandon.（私たちは、無謀なことをするよりも、慎重に検討することを望みます。）
- Compared to their western counterparts, Japanese executives seem to take more personal responsibility for their decision making.（欧米の経営者に比べて、日本の経営者は意思決定に対してより個人的な責任を負っているようです。）
- Japanese executives tend to internalize their business decisions.（日本の重役はビジネス上の決断を内面化しがちである。）
- A general consensus is highly valued in Japanese companies.（日本企業では（一般的な）意見の一致に重きが置かれています。）
- Japanese companies cannot really move forward without a total buy-in from all stakeholders.（日本企業は、すべての株主の総意を得ないと本当の意味では前に進むことができません。）
- Data can never be over-analyzed in Japanese companies.（日本の会社では、分析は大変重要とされています。（分析をしすぎるということはありません））