Can Japanese mentoring enhance understanding of Western mentoring?

Abstract

Purpose

Aims to illustrate how Japan possesses cultural characteristics to support mentoring as a relationship, as opposed to the West, whose favoured approach is to view mentoring as a strategy.

Design/methodology/approach

A comparative analysis of the mentoring literature from two world views; the Japanese mentoring context (primarily the senpai‐kohai relationship) is compared and contrasted with the Western mentoring context.

Findings

The US and European context for mentoring increasingly consists of formalised schemes, targeted at specific groups (such as the talented or socially disadvantaged), and forms a co‐ordinated activity of human resource departments. As Western organisations have changed, mentoring has become defined in strategic terms, and aligned with a variety of popular management theories. In contrast, Japanese views of mentoring are characterised by informality, organic growth of relationships at all organisational levels, and are based on emotional bonds between seniors and juniors.

Practical implications

A very useful source to explain why Western organisations find it difficult to establish mentoring relationships based on emotional bonds. The Japanese show that there is an alternative; one requiring many Western organisations to adapt their organisational cultures and re‐conceptualise their views of mentoring.

Originality/value

This paper brings together the few contributions by authors of the Japanese senpai‐kohai relationship (a form of mentoring exclusive to Japan). It compares a rarely examined context in the mentoring debate (i.e. Eastern views of mentoring) with the larger body of work examining mentoring in the West. Originality resides in the results of the comparative analysis, revealing one context which views mentoring as a relationship, and another which views mentoring as a strategy.

Citation

Iain Bright, M. (2005), "Can Japanese mentoring enhance understanding of Western mentoring?", Employee Relations, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510605679