entrepreneurial companies and smaller firms. This system generally relies heavily upon the human resource and relation sectors of the company. The goals are not purely instrumental to the company, but rather are a conglomerate of the aspirations of the employees of the company. Behavior of the participants is not guided strictly by formal and written rules set by the organization. However, the organization does function as a sort of social system for its participants. Here the participants feel as though perpetuation of the company as a whole is an essential part of pursuing their own desires and goals. The employees work for the company not for monetary incentives but because of their love for their work and their drive to prolong the company. Natural System closely fits U.S. smaller companies in their fledgling state, where cooperation and unified drive is critical in launching a productive company. These two systems provide the basic frameworks that I will use to classify and delineate general Japanese company operations from that of U.S. company operations. The new wave of U.S. industries has closely adopted the Natural System setup for companies. The highlights of Google for example, using the Natural Systems approach, are quite clear. Google portrays itself to the public as a hub and a generator of unique and brilliant ideas, mainly stemming from the spontaneous minds of its employees. It prides itself on being “not a conventional company” and on the fact that it “does not intend to become one.”vii Management takes on a very organic nature in the sense that communication remains fluid and freeflowing between manager and employee, and that the manager is integrated with the teamwork. In other words, Google is consciously trying to stray from the path of bureaucracy. The workers are passionate about their work and self-goals as much as they are about the company Princeton Journal of East Asian Studies!
itself. Employees are encouraged to enjoy their freedom to pursue their desires. This mentality has been preserved throughout Google’s startup process, and the straying from strict hierarchal boundaries has been an essential trademark of most up-and-coming entrepreneurial firms. The freedom and united direction within these companies has allowed for an unhindered mind in pushing into novel boundaries and markets. Natural System-style organizations model the ideal conception of an entrepreneurial company. Japanese large firms, on the other hand, are represented by a Rational System-like company structure; one of bureaucratic nature. Thus far, I have gained an understanding of Japanese company mindset and attitudes and have examined how the many aspects of strict bureaucracy in Japanese companies have led to a lack of entrepreneurial growth. My research has revealed that business structures and social construction and organization provide explanations for Japan’s lack of entrepreneurial growth. I. JAPANESE COMPANY STRUCTURE: INTERNAL HIERARCHY AND ATTITUDES As noted above, the Japanese economy is maintained heavily by “dynasty” companies. In order to attain a better notion of this term “dynasty,” it is important to understand where Japanese companies initially attained their power. Today’s well known companies such as Mitsubishi and Nissan are remnants of the zaibatsu, early 1900s vertical-chain-ofcommand firms. These companies were ruled by family name and employed their immense financial and monopoly power. Everything from manufacturing and retailing to banking shared the name of the company. After World War II, the zaibatsu dissolved and reformed into the 22!