When Taiwanese companies engage in cross-border collaboration with their Japanese counterparts, they often encounter a puzzling situation: “For the same matter, why do Japanese companies require so many layers of reporting and multiple approvals?” In this article, we will not focus on differences in language, honorifics, or meeting styles. Instead, we will delve into a deeper dimension—the cultural logic behind organizational structures and operational systems.

By comparing Taiwan’s typically flat, flexible management style, often seen in small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with Japan’s meticulously layered hierarchy of roles and responsibilities, we aim to uncover the historical roots and operational logic underlying these differences. We seek to answer: Why does a simple request that might be resolved quickly in Taiwan lead to three separate departmental discussions in Japan? Why is what feels like “efficiency” in Taiwan often perceived as "chaos" in Japan?

Analyzing the Cultural Differences in Organizational Structures between Taiwan and Japan

1. Taiwan's Flexibility vs. Japan's Order: The Cultural Logic Behind Organizational Design

The management style of Taiwanese companies is largely rooted in an emphasis on efficiency and interpersonal relationships. Hierarchies between managers and subordinates are relatively blurred, communication tends to be direct and quick, and the mantra is often “act first, adjust later.” It is common for business owners in SMEs to personally handle decision-making, sales management, and even human resources, with organizational structures frequently being adjusted ad hoc based on operational needs.

In contrast, Japanese companies operate with clearly defined hierarchical structures, spanning positions such as section chief (kacho), department manager (bucho), and general manager (honbucho), each with distinct scopes of responsibility and authority. While this system contributes to organizational stability and accountability, it can also slow down decision-making processes.

2. Authority, Responsibility, and Trust: The Deep Logic of Japan's Hierarchical System

Within Taiwanese companies, the division of authority and responsibility tends to be relatively flexible. Decision-making often relies heavily on interpersonal negotiation and on-the-spot adjustments. It is common for managers to take on multiple roles simultaneously, enabling swift decisions and rapid execution. While this flexibility is an advantage in fast-moving or resource-constrained environments, it can also lead to blurred lines of responsibility and miscommunication, especially when collaboration spans multiple departments or crosses international borders.

In contrast, Japan’s hierarchical system is not merely a formality—it is a carefully constructed mechanism for risk dispersion and trust building within the organization. Each position comes with a clearly delineated scope of responsibility and authority, and decision-making processes are structured to pass sequentially through the appropriate levels of hierarchy, with formal records maintained at each stage. This approach ensures clear accountability: who made what decision, and under whose authority. In Japanese companies, “who has the authority to decide” is not simply a matter of organizational rank; it is an integral part of managing organizational risk and maintaining internal balance. Even high-ranking executives are expected to adhere to internal approval procedures. Unilateral decision-making without proper consultation or approval is often viewed not as leadership, but as a breach of organizational trust and stability.

From a cross-cultural collaboration perspective, if Taiwanese companies fail to recognize this logic of distributed authority and accountability, they may instinctively attempt to expedite decisions by directly approaching the highest-ranking individual available. However, from the Japanese side, such behavior can be perceived as disrespectful to internal processes and structures, potentially undermining trust among middle management and causing disruptions to internal consensus-building. In serious cases, bypassing the established hierarchy can jeopardize not only the relationship between individual stakeholders but also the success of the overall collaborative project.

3. Communication Tempo and Information Flow: How Organizational Systems Shape Collaboration Styles

Even when Taiwanese and Japanese companies share the same goals in a collaboration, differences in communication tempo and the way information flows often become sources of friction.

For example, Taiwanese teams typically favor an agile approach during meetings: raising issues on the spot, holding immediate discussions, and reaching decisions right away. Speed and flexibility are highly valued, and on-the-spot consensus is seen as a hallmark of efficiency and responsiveness. In contrast, Japanese teams tend to listen carefully during meetings, but defer final decision-making until after further internal discussions and a sequential approval process. Decisions are not typically finalized on the spot. From the Taiwanese perspective, this approach may seem inefficient or indecisive. However, for Japanese organizations, it is a vital process that prevents unilateral decisions, ensures internal consensus, and mitigates organizational risks.

Information flow practices also differ markedly. Taiwanese companies tend to use a wide range of channels—LINE, email, shared files, and more—communicating flexibly with multiple stakeholders as needed. By contrast, Japanese companies prioritize stable and structured information flow: communications are typically routed through designated points of contact, with exchanges conducted between equivalent levels of hierarchy, and all important information formally documented for traceability. If Taiwanese companies fail to appreciate these differences and continue to operate based on their usual flexible practices, their behavior may be perceived by the Japanese side as "unclear accountability" or "violation of formal procedures," potentially eroding trust and disrupting collaboration.

These differences in communication behavior ultimately reflect deeper differences in organizational design and risk management philosophy. Understanding this underlying logic enables Taiwanese companies to shift from simply urging faster responses to strategically navigating internal Japanese processes to achieve smoother collaboration outcomes.

Practical Strategies for Cross-Cultural Collaboration and Beyond

1. Matching Systems with Systems

After understanding the structural and operational differences between Taiwanese and Japanese organizations, Taiwanese companies can enhance collaboration outcomes by adopting the following three strategic approaches:

1. Respect the Organizational Structure and Establish Clear Points of Contact: When collaborating with Japanese companies, it is crucial to clearly define who communicates with whom, and to strictly adhere to formal channels. Even in urgent situations, bypassing designated contacts or authority levels should be avoided. Respecting the structure not only prevents misunderstandings but also builds the foundation of trust necessary for sustainable cooperation.
2. Understand the Tempo and Allow Sufficient Time: Recognize that decision-making processes in Japanese companies often take more time. When planning projects, build in generous buffers for internal approvals. For important proposals, consider conducting informal discussions with Japanese counterparts beforehand to understand their basic stance and key concerns. This approach helps focus official meetings on confirmation and refinement rather than starting debates from scratch.
3. Ensure Complete Information and Clarify Roles and Responsibilities: In cross-border collaboration, transparency and clear delineation of responsibilities are critical. Maintain thorough records of important communications, meeting minutes, and key agreements to facilitate internal reporting and approvals on the Japanese side. Respect the roles and authority of designated points of contact, and avoid unilateral communications that might bypass formal procedures. Such discipline minimizes confusion and helps preserve mutual trust throughout the collaboration process.

2. Cross-Cultural Understanding and ESG

In recent years, understanding organizational culture and practicing cross-cultural communication have become not merely operational skills, but core components of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) governance frameworks. Today, ESG factors are central concerns for international investors and supply chain partners. Within ESG, the "S" (Social) dimension places particular emphasis on "employee rights," "labor relations," "organizational justice," and "cross-cultural collaboration."