The Drift of “Job-Based” Debates in Japan—What Is Missing in HR Discourse—

---

I read with great interest the article by Keiichiro Hamaguchi, published in the Nikkei on March 6, 2026, titled “The Current State of Job-Based Employment (Part 1): The Foundation Remains Japanese.” The article begins with an intriguing observation: that the very term “job-based” has become oddly prominent in Japan.

In most parts of the world, employment, HR practices, and compensation are fundamentally based on jobs. There is therefore no need to explicitly label them as “job-based.” From this perspective, it is rather Japan’s employment practices that appear exceptional, which the author characterizes as a “membership-based” system.

I find part of this argument persuasive. A corporation exists to achieve a certain purpose, and it is naturally structured as a collection of roles designed to fulfill that purpose. It is therefore entirely reasonable that HR and compensation systems are built around defined roles.

However, the issue lies in how the argument subsequently develops. The author presents Japan’s employment practices as if they reflect a fundamentally different type of organization. This is where I find some difficulty. It is hard to argue that the essential nature of a corporation differs across countries. Organizations everywhere exist to create value. They are structured through the design of roles aligned with their objectives, and function by placing the right people in those roles.

If there is a difference, it lies not in the nature of the organization itself, but in how it is operated.

The long-standing Japanese practices of lifetime employment and seniority-based treatment did not emerge in the absence of defined roles. Rather, they evolved as a way to support organizations that aimed to create value over the long term. Companies hired new graduates, rotated them internally, and developed their capabilities over time. This system differed from hiring ready-made talent from the external labor market, but it had its own internal logic as a mechanism for sustaining long-term organizational capability.

The problem today is not the existence of such systems per se. It is that the fundamental linkage between corporate purpose, job design, and the definition of required talent is no longer being examined, while the term “job-based” is being used in isolation.

Much of the recent debate on “job-based” systems focuses on formal elements such as job descriptions, job grading, and job-based pay. Yet a job is not simply a bundle of tasks. It is something designed based on managerial judgment—what roles are necessary to achieve the organization’s objectives. The required talent profile should, in turn, be derived from those roles.

The proper sequence should be as follows:

Corporate purpose and strategy

↓

Organizational design

↓

Job design

↓

Required talent profiles

↓

HR systems

In current discussions, however, this sequence is often reversed. Without sufficiently addressing corporate purpose or organizational design, there is a tendency to reshape HR systems to resemble “job-based” models. As a result, many so-called reforms amount to partial adjustments—“job-like” practices layered onto existing employment frameworks.

Unfortunately, such discussions are often led by those regarded as HR experts. Yet much of the discourse remains confined to institutional design, without adequately addressing the fundamental question: what roles should be designed to achieve the organization’s objectives?

Consequently, “job-based” is increasingly treated as if it were a new solution or prescription, detached from the actual realities of corporate management. If this trend continues, HR discussions in Japan risk becoming abstract and disconnected from the substance of how organizations create value.

The real issue is not whether a system is “job-based” or “membership-based.” What truly matters is how an organization defines its purpose and designs roles to achieve it.

It is my hope that discussions on HR in Japan will move beyond labels and institutional forms, and return to this fundamental question of organizational purpose and design.