sriharsha63
In question 3 , i have opted for option C.
In the passage, it says that rather than being proactive the Japanese workers are being reactive and then the passage cites the Oh no! example. From this i understood that Japanese people adopt this mechanism to "react" to the circumstances rather than estimating the resources (count) before hand (thus refraining from being proactive). Can you please help me understand where i went wrong in this question.
Quote:
B. challenge a particular misconception about worker empowerment in the Japanese auto industry
C. illustrate the kinds of problem-solving techniques encouraged by company unions in Japan
The "OH! NO!" system is not one that the production workers at Taichi Ohno proactively chose to adopt; rather it is one that the workers are forced to react to because the founder forced it upon them.
Let's break down the second paragraph: "The Japanese model was often invoked as one in which authority decentralized to the shop floor empowered production workers to make key decisions". However, "actual delegation of authority was to the foreman, not the workers." In other words, the Japanese model was often seen as one in which authority was delegated to production workers on the shop floor. The author believes this view was a misconception because, in reality, authority was delegated to the foreman and not to the workers on the shop floor. Thus, the foreman would have significant authority (job assignments, training, transfers, etc), while the authority (i.e. "initiative") of the production workers was limited to fine-tuning processes largely beyond their control. So the production workers could not take initiative and be proactive; rather, they could only react to the processes dictated by management.
Even though the Japanese model was seen as one that empowered production workers to make key decisions, in reality, production workers under the Japanese model had little control, if any, over key decisions. The "OH! NO!" system is cited as evidence in support of the author's view, which is that the Japanese model did NOT in fact empower production workers to make key decisions. Choice (B) fits with this analysis.
As for choice (C), the "OH! NO!" system does not "illustrate the kinds of problem-solving techniques encouraged by company unions in Japan". We have no idea if other companies in Japan utilized the "OH! NO!" system or similar techniques. All we know is that the system is an example of a production system that did not delegate significant authority to workers and that forced workers to be reactive rather than proactive.
I hope this helps!