The Drift of “Job-Based” Debates (Part 2)—HR Systems Without Job Design—

---

In my previous post, I examined an article by Keiichiro Hamaguchi, published in the Nikkei on March 6, 2026, and raised concerns that the concept of “job-based” employment—widely discussed in Japan—is often treated as a matter of HR system design, detached from organizational and job design.

In this follow-up, I turn to the article by Motohiro Morishima, published in the Nikkei on March 9, 2026, titled “The Current State of Job-Based Employment (Part 2): Expectations Yet to Be Realized,” to explore this issue further.

HR Functions and Systems That Support Management

In his article, Morishima explains job-based employment as a system grounded in job descriptions, while noting that, in Japanese companies, it often takes the form of a “hybrid” model combined with existing practices.

However, there is a critical issue that tends to be overlooked.

What is referred to as “job-based” is not merely a form of employment contract. Rather, it is something that should be derived from a more fundamental starting point: how a company formulates its business strategy, designs its organization to execute that strategy, and defines the jobs required within it.

The process should begin with:

• Formulating corporate strategy

• Designing the organization to implement that strategy

• Defining the roles required within that organization

  
  

From there, the required talent profiles become clear, and appropriate systems for hiring, placement, and development are established.

In other words, the sequence is as follows:

Corporate strategy formulation

↓

Organizational design

↓

Job design 

↓

Talent profile development

↓

Hiring, placement, and development

 Seen in this light, it becomes easier to understand why Japanese companies historically developed systems such as:

• Cohort hiring of new graduates

• Long-term employment

• Internal labor markets

  
  

These were not accidental institutional choices, but rather rational outcomes shaped by the way organizations were designed and operated.

What “Hybrid” Really Means

Morishima points out that many companies have adopted hybrid systems combining job-based elements with traditional practices.　However, this is not the core issue.　What is described as “hybrid” is, in essence, a state in which job design and talent management are not properly aligned.

Ideally, the sequence—corporate strategy formulation, organizational design, job design, talent profile development, and hiring/placement/development—should function as a coherent and integrated system.

Yet in current discussions, the central element—job design—is largely absent. While much attention is given to the introduction of job-based pay or job grading systems, there is little discussion of how jobs themselves are defined or how organizations are designed in the first place.

It is precisely this absence that has led to confusion in Japan’s “job-based” debate.

The Real Issue Facing Japanese Companies

The fundamental problem in Japanese companies does not lie in practices such as cohort hiring or long-term employment per se.

These systems were originally aligned with:

• A management philosophy oriented toward long-term corporate sustainability

• Organizational and job design derived from that philosophy

• Human resource development aimed at building capabilities and supporting that long-term vision

  
  

The real issue is that the underlying assumptions of management have changed.

Many companies continue to maintain:

• Cohort hiring of new graduates

• Long-term employment

• Internal development of talent

while their managerial orientation has shifted toward:

• Short-term performance

• Expansion-driven strategies

• Market-driven management, often associated with shareholder capitalism

In other words, the alignment between corporate strategy and the talent system has broken down.

Yet this issue is rarely addressed in discussions of HR systems.

The fundamental role of HR is to design and operate mechanisms that align corporate strategy with the effective and efficient utilization of human resources. From this perspective, it becomes clear that much of the current debate misses the essence of the problem.

Beyond Institutional Debates

Discussing the differences between “job-based” and “membership-based” systems is not without value.

However, as long as the discussion remains confined to HR systems alone, it is difficult to grasp the true nature of how organizations manage people.

The essential questions are:

• How should an organization be designed in line with the corporate strategy?

• How jobs should be defined within it?

• What kind of talent should be developed?

  
  

Perhaps the discussion should begin there.