Is "Different" Bad or Good: Japanese Engineering Compared to American Engineering

Within the Untied States engineering field, the concept of “learn by doing” is a common and relatable saying. US engineering is based off selective education found in prestige colleges and universities, but also the skills one develops during their career. The success from these skills and education are what notably push them to higher levels of status within the engineering field. This system strongly promotes the concept of individual work to bring one success. For anyone that knows how US culture, this concept of “be the best you can be” is understandable. However, according to Gary Legg, Special Project Editor, these beliefs are the exact opposite of the image Japanese culture promotes to its citizens.

Legg’s article, American engineers in Japan: Getting by with a little help from friends, stresses the importance of how the Japanese culture affects the workplace, especially for engineers. Referring to American engineers who participated in an exchange program, the Americans were surprised to see such extreme differences within Japanese culture. Some of the main occurrences that took them by surprise was how Japanese people are “friendly and animates once you get past” introductions, lack of displayed emotion, and the idea that one will benefit more if they work as a team and not an individual. All these components express how Japanese people differ from the US, but does that mean they are unfavorable? A common tendency for many people is to associate the idea of something different with it causing a negative affect. This is an unfair assumption. If these typical Japanese behaviors were conducted within the US, then they might cause a negative affect to the participants because they do not adjust to American culture in order to benefit themselves. However, the same affect would happen for Americans who try to practice their American rituals within Japan, they are neglected from opportunities. Through the descriptions of the different engineers who participated within the exchange program, Legg’s stresses the importance of culture when considering the success of employment. These visitors would have suffered dramatically in and outside the workplace if their host families did not help them become accustomed to the local traditions.

Legg’s second article, American engineers in Japan: Same profession, different world, continues with the same theme as the first one by exposing differences between American and Japanese ideals. However, this article focuses more on the specific differences within the work environment of an engineers. It is interesting to see how the American engineers adapt to the hierarchal work place that institutes specific roles for each employee. In addition, how these engineers adjust to the longer work days and week, expected social drinking after the work day and the concept of team unity over individual success. Once again the issue of being different as a negative or beneficial idea rises. The conclusion that I have created by reading these articles is that it is neither. Each country has a different history which leads to their different way of education, work performance and culture. The important part is learning, understanding and accepting that all three of these influences affect each other. The only negative aspect is one who insists to ignore that these subjects are not interrelated. These individuals, or sometimes organizations, who refuse this concept are the ones who will not be able to fully benefit from any system. They will forever be considered a ““gajin” (foreigner)” and will not be able to move forward towards their desired goal. The purpose of the exchange program is to “grow people as global thinkers” so they can understand and accept any environment they work in, for this is vital to their success.