MMRCDISCUSSION PAPER SERIES

No. 399

The Influence of National Level Factors on International Kaizen
Transfer: An Exploratory Study in the Netherlands
Kodo Yokozawa
Manufacturing Management Research Center,
Faculty of Economics, the University of Tokyo, Japan
Harm-Jan Steenhuis
Department of Management, College of Business and Public Administration,
Eastern Washington University
May 2012

東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター
Manufacturing Management Research Center (MMRC)
Discussion papers are in draft form distributed for purposes of comment and discussion. Contact the author for
permission when reproducing or citing any part of this paper. Copyright is held by the author.
http://merc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mmrc/dp/index.html

The Influence of National Level Factors on International
Kaizen Transfer: an Exploratory Study in the Netherlands

Kodo Yokozawa
Manufacturing Management Research Center
Faculty of Economics, the University of Tokyo, Japan
Harm-Jan Steenhuis
Department of Management
College of Business and Public Administration
Eastern Washington University, USA

Abstract
The purpose of this research study was to examine the international transfer of kaizen.
The central research question was formulated as what national level factors influence
the transfer of kaizen? In the study, an inductive case study approach was followedwith semi-structured interviews. The study focused on Japanese subsidiaries in the
Netherlands. A total of 15 companies participated in the research. Two main factors,
not previously identified in the literature, were found: the level of eagerness of
employees and the level of discipline of employees. Based on these two factors,
transferring kaizen to the Netherlands was found challenging.
Key Words: Kaizen, international operations, technology transfer, knowledge transfer
11. Introduction
One of the advantages of multinational companies (MNC) is their ability to coordinate
manufacturing practices across the manufacturing network, see for example (Flaherty,
1986, Flaherty, 1996). In some cases, this requires the transfer of equipment or
production lines but it can also relate to production philosophies. Examples of thelatter are Japanese philosophies such as just-in-time and lean production.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Japanese manufacturers became prominent in several
industries such as electronics and cars. Western companies tried to emulate Japaneseapproaches such as the Toyota Production System, see (Liker, 2004), and leanmanufacturing, see (Henderson and Larco, 2003). Japanese companies also transferred
production systems to their overseas locations (Aoki, 2008).
In line with the approaches of Western companies to emulate Japanese practices
and with the approaches of Japanese companies to transfer their practices to overseas
subsidiaries came an increase in research on Japanese management practices. For
instance, scholars have tried to identify the keys of Japanese success, e.g. (Womack etal., 1991). Subsequent research has shown that transferring Japanese practices acrossborders has not been easy. Babson (1995, p. 238) concluded “The Japanese model was
not so easily transferred to the US in any case, for many of the social and corporate
structures that made worker commitment mandatory in Japan’s auto industry wereunique to the system’s home base.”
It is important to make a distinction between implementing kaizen andtransferring kaizen. Implementation generally refers to the process of putting adecision or plan into effect. Pettigrew (1990) offered a framework for implementation
studies. He views the implementation as a process of change referring to the actions,reactions and interactions of the various interested parties as they seek to move thefirm from its present position to its future state (Pettigrew, 1987). Similarly,
Savolainen (1999) studied the processes and dynamics of continuous improvement(CI) implementation. She approached CI from the perspective of organisational
renewal and looked at implementation as a managerial ideological change process.
Transfer generally means moving from one place to another. The main difference with
implementation is that two main actors are involved, i.e. a sender and a receiver. For
example, Szulanski (1996, p.28) indicated that “transfers of best practice are seen as2

dyadic exchanges of organisational knowledge between a source and recipient unit.”
One area of focus in transfer oriented studies is the environmental difference or
distance between the two actors because the extent of this difference influences thetransfer process. This difference can be cultural, physical, and linguistic etc. (Bhagat etal., 2002, Chen et al., 2010, Welch and Welch, 2008). This research area for this study
is the transfer of Japanese management systems by Japanese companies.
Based on the extensive research that goes back to the 1980s, one could easily
conclude that this topic has been sufficiently researched. However, in line with Babson(1995), more recent research still indicates that 80 per cent of Japanese companies findthe international transfer of Japanese management systems problematic (Yokozawa etal., 2010). Of these, kaizen is considered the most problematic concept for transfer(Yokozawa et al., 2010). Kaizen or continuous improvement (CI) is one of the key
concepts deployed by Japanese manufacturers (Brunet and New, 2003) and is definedin general terms as continuous improvement involving everyone in the company (Imai,1986) .
The purpose of this research is to contribute to the understanding of the influenceof national level factors on the international transfer of kaizen. Ohmae (1985) argued
that for business, there are three important regions in the world, i.e. the triad, which
consists of Japan, the United States and Europe. In this study a choice was made tofocus on kaizen transfer between two of the regions, i.e. transfer of kaizen from Japanbased companies to Europe. Within Europe a further distinction was made based onwhere Japanese companies invest. Data from the Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO) shows that for the last seven years, i.e. 2003 until 2009, the Netherlands was
six

times

the

largestrecipientinEuropeofJapanese

investments(http://www.jetro.go.jp/en/reports/statistics/). Therefore, it was decided to focus theresearch on the international transfer of kaizen by Japanese manufacturers to theNetherlands.
2. Kaizen
Original idea of kaizen or continuous improvement was developed in the US andtransferred to Japan after World War II (Shroder and Robinson, 1991; Huntzinger,
2002). It was adapted and further improved by the Japanese manufacturers which they3

even gave it a Japanese name: kaizen (Kenney and Florida, 1993). Shroeder andRobinson (1991) discuss that there are two main reasons why continuous improvement
program proliferated rapidly in Japan soon after the World War II. First reason is thatJapan faced serious resource shortage which they had to find an inexpensive means toimprove production and reduce cost. Second, Training Within Industry (TWI) was
introduced to Japanese industry by the US occupation forces, had a large influence intraining Japanese workers and managers in methods analysis and laid a solid
foundation for continuous improvement (Huntzinger, 2002). Suggestion systems arefurther reinforced by quality control circle (QC) movement in the early 1960s andeven more proliferated during the oil crisis in 1973 as companies seek for establishedmethods to reduced cost without making big investment. Around 1970s to 1980s,
Japanese manufacturers became famous for high quality products, in sectors as diverse
as electronics, automobiles and steel making. Many researchers indicated that kaizen
helped Japanese manufacturers to gain a significant competitive edge (Bessant, 1994;
Imai, 1986; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992).
Many exist that have examined the kaizen process. Imai (1986) discussed therelationship of kaizen success with the use of methods and tools such as quality
control circles, suggestion systems, and total quality control. He discussed that thosemethods are closely related to kaizen but they are not the same. Imai (1986) mentionedthat kaizen is a philosophy that encompasses those methods. Some authors viewkaizen as an organisational capability (Brunet and New, 2003, Aoki, 2008, de Jager etal., 2004). Fujiomoto (1997) classified the organisational capability in regard to
manufacturing companies into three levels: first the most fundamental level ofmaintenance capability which is the ability to maintain a particular level of
performance consistency. The second level is improvement capability, which affects
the pace of performance improvements, and final level is evolutionary capability
which is capability for capability building. For instance, in order to develop the
improvement capability, the middle option which this paper is concerning, practicing a
number of routine is important. In Toyota, about ten thousand suggestions a year are
submitted by employees. The procedure is based on what it called Quality Control(QC) story – the standardised QC approach of problem-solving and standardisation, or
the PDCA cycle (Kondo, 1990) – and everyone is involved in the kaizen activities.
4

Fujimoto (1997) mentioned that through repeating these routines gradually become
organisational capability. Bessant et al. (2001) provides intensive study on how theorganisational capabilities for sustainable and incremental innovation which can be
developed by practicing a number of behavioural routines. Bessant (2003) says theprocess of accumulating such a resource is a long and difficult one involving
articulation and learning of behaviours and practising and reinforcing them until they
become routines. They focused on the ways in which certain behavioural patterns canbe built up across organisations to deliver operational and ultimately strategic
advantage through high and regular involvement in the improvement process.
Several factors that are critical for successful kaizen process have been identified
in the former studies. For instance, managerial commitment (Bessant, 2003, Boer et al.,2000, Imai, 1986). This was mainly because they determine the level of resources
allocated to the kaizen activities particularly considerable investment in human andfinancial, informational, technological resources. Top management acts as a driver ofkaizen activities, creating values, goals and systems to develop kaizen culture.
Use of methods and tools is also discussed in the literature that can enhance anddiffuse kaizen more widely across the organisation (Bessant, 2003, Boer et al., 2000,
Bessant et al., 1994, Imai, 1986). Common tools that are used with kaizen are such as
Pareto analysis, check sheets, and cause-and-effect diagrams, while brainstorming
remains a robust and extensively used problem solving aid (Bessant et al., 1994).
The role of organisational structures is noted by a number of authors as critical tokaizen success. Parry and Song (1993) highlighted the unique nature of centralisationand formalisation in Japanese organisations. They noted that decision making
authority in Japanese organisations is widely diffused rather than mere top-bottom orbottom-up. Regarding job description Japanese companies have ambiguous jobs which
are roughly defined and employees are expected to present ideas for improvement(Kono, 1982). This is in sharp contrast to the job description patterns in many westerncompanies where job descriptions are defined and are more structured. Groupdecisions and teamwork combined with the ambiguous jobs allows employees moresocialisation. The overall structure of Japanese companies is a mix of organic andmechanistic structure (Adler, 1999, Liker and Morgan, 2006). Mechanistic structured
organisations have high level of standardisation, formalisation, specialisation, and5hierarchical authority. Organic structured organisations, on the other hand, have lowlevels of standardisation, formalisation, specialisation, and hierarchical authority(Burns and Stalker, 1961, Courtright et al., 1989). Adler (1999) introduced the conceptof enabling bureaucracy to discuss how Japanese companies leverage this mixture oforganic and mechanistic structure for competitive advantage. This means that Japaneseorganisations develop mechanistic structures, such as standardisation, to reduce
variation in processes; but they are based on the organic structures such as teamworkand employee participation. At the core of the enabling bureaucracy lies employees’
involvement and empowerment, using rules and procedures as enabling tools, andhierarchical structures to support the work of the doer rather than to bolster theauthority of the higher ups. This is explained by Adler and Borys (1996) as:“The standardised work process brings workers and supervisors together to define
cooperatively and to document in great detail the most effective work methods andtask allocations…

Strong formal and informal incentives encourage workers to

identify and propose improvements in methods. Deviations from the detailed,prescribed methods signal either the need for further worker training or the need torevise the inadequate standardised work methods. In this context, the TQM dictum“you can't improve a process that hasn't been standardised" becomes a philosophyof collaborative learning…” (p. 72)
The role of communication and mode of knowledge sharing is discussed by Nonaka(1994) and Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who noted that socialisation is the dominantmode of knowledge transfer in Japanese companies. ‘Socialisation’ is the process of
sharing experiences and thereby conveying tacit knowledge from one person toanother. Thus a more experienced person shares the mental models and technical skills
with others. ‘Socialisation’ counts more on the tacit knowledge of employees rather
than explicit knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) further noted that Western
managers are more likely to underutilise the value of tacit knowledge as compared totheir Japanese counterparts. The communication structures in Japanese companies aredesigned to provide both horizontal and vertical communication (Kono, 1982). The
problems and suggestions for improvements arise from the shop floor level and thenare directed to top-management for organisation-wide improvements.
6

A number of authors have highlighted the social factors that contribute to thesuccess of kaizen. These factors include teamwork, trust based business management,strong networking, and supplier development, labour turnover rate, labour union(Beechler and Yang, 1994, Choy and Jain, 1987, Kenney and Florida, 1993),
experience and awareness about kaizen (Bessant, 2003), consistency (Bessant et al.,
1994, Boer et al., 2000) and strategic framework (Bessant et al., 1994, Boer et al.,2000).
The above mentioned literature helps to understand the kaizen process and factorsthat influencing this process. However, those do not consider the national factors that
may have an influence on the kaizen transfer abroad. Many authors have attributed
these difficulties to the context specificity of kaizen which means that due to its origin
in Japanese context, kaizen is difficult to replicate elsewhere. In the next section,
literature regarding national factors on kaizen transfer is reviewed.
3. National factors
Two relevant areas in the literature are reviewed in this section. One is the literature on
international kaizen transfer (3.1). It will focus on what types of national level factors
have been identified in the former researches. Moreover research area of international
knowledge transfer is reviewed (3.2) to investigate how this study regarding
international transfer of kaizen can contribute to fill the gaps in this broader researcharea.
3.1 Literature on international kaizen transfer
There are many studies that indicate that national factors have influence on the transfer
of kaizen. One of the national level factors that have been identified in the literature
are labour turnover, which is related to commitment of employees to the company(Beechler and Yang, 1994, Kenney and Florida, 1995), and industrial relations whichis related to the influence of unions (Beechler and Yang, 1994, Choy and Jain, 1987,
Kenney and Florida, 1993, Shimada, 1990). For example, Kenney and Florida (1995, p.
797) found that a higher labour turnover rate than in Japan complicates efforts todevelop conformance to Japanese-style norms, behaviours and management
techniques. Furthermore, Kenney and Florida (1995) found that companies followed7different approaches in the US based on whether a union was present or not. Four of
the nine Japanese or US-Japanese joint ventures in their study on car assembly were
non-unionised. These chose rural greenfield sites to avoid unionisation. Also, Japanese
team-oriented policies and flexible work rules, a smaller number of job classifications,and the utilisation of different pay systems tended to conflict with union rules whichemphasise work specialisation and individual responsibilities (Kenney and Florida,1995).
Many other authors found that national culture has an influence on theinternational kaizen transfer. Fukuda (1988) examined the extent of the application offeatures of Japanese-style management (i.e. ideologies and practices) in more than one
hundred Japanese subsidiaries. He concluded that the Japanese management systems
were difficult to transfer overseas because they were closely tied to the prevailingculture. Recht and Wilderom (1998) emphasised the role of culture and found thatsuccessful transfer of kaizen oriented suggestion system is possible in non-Japanesecompanies through a number of changes that impact deep culture. Flynn and Saladin(2006) and Power et al. (2010) mentioned of general cultural dimensions that may
influence a process management program. The underlying message of the research of
Flynn and Saladin (2006), Power et al. (2010), and Recht and Wilderom (1998), is that
cultural differences play an important role in the success or failure of internationalkaizen transfer. In addition to these studies, some studies have an explicit focus on
total quality management (Dahlgaard et al., 1998, de Macedo-Soares and Lucas, 1996,
Naor et al., 2008, Sousa-Poza et al., 2001). Several studies have pointed out thatnational culture plays an important role (Lagrosen, 2003, Vecchi and Brennan, 2011).
Mathews et al. (2001) studied quality management practices in the UK, Finland andPortugal. They found that the existing differences in quality management practices
were related to national culture. Using Hofstede’s framework, they found that thedimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance particularly had explanatory
power in the national differences observed. Lagrosen (2002) in a study involving theUK, Germany, France and Italy as well as Tata and Prasad (1998) reached similar
conclusions.
3.2 Literature on international Knowledge transfer
8Influence of the national factors on the knowledge transfer has been investigated in theformer researches. Welch and Welch (2008) and Duan et al. (2010) found that thelanguage plays a critical role during the knowledge transfer process. Welch and Welch(2008) found that language plays a roles as a ‘reconfiguration agent’ which means that
language continually reconfigures the total international knowledge transfer system;
acting as a precursor, contextual influence and even reconstructing basic messages.
Some others examined the impact of geographic distance on knowledge transfer
effectiveness in multinational companies. Ambos and Ambos (2009) found that as
geographic distance increases, its contribution to knowledge transfer effectivenessdecreases dramatically. This is similar to findings from Daft and Lengel (1986) who
found that when the geographic distance between knowledge sender and recipient ishigh, obstacles such as long transmission channels and different time zones limit theeffectiveness of transfer, as the complexity and cost of knowledge exploration andtransaction increase. Kayes et al. (2005) examine the managers’ critical competencies
for cross-cultural knowledge absorption. From an intensive literature study ofknowledge management and cross-cultural competency research, they identified sevencompetencies for knowledge absorption. Some of these competencies are related tonational level factors.
Several authors found that cultural factors have an important impact onknowledge transfer process. Hong et al. (2006) examined the cross-cultural influenceson organisational learning in MNC. They conducted a qualitative study at five
Japanese manufacturing companies in China. Their findings indicate that there aredifferences between frontline Japanese and Chinese workers in terms of constructive
engagement and member solidarity, thus limiting organisational learning. That is
attributed to deep-seated cultural values of the frontline Chinese workers who resist
such involvement. Hong et al. (2006) confirms that national level factors are importantwhen transferring knowledge. Van Wijk et al. (2008) examined how organisational
knowledge transfer between and within organisations relate differently to theirantecedents and consequences. They concluded that cultural distance particularly
hinders knowledge transfer in terms of intraorganisational knowledge transfer. Chen etal. (2010) looked specifically at the impact of national culture on the structured
knowledge transfer from a US-based (onshore) technical support centre to an offshore
9

support centre in China. It was found that cultural and communication difficulties andweak relationships were the critical barriers to successful knowledge transfer.
In conclusion, since the 1980s, many studies have been conducted that focussed
on kaizen or continuous improvement, see e.g. (Aoki, 2008; Bessant, 2003; Boer et al.,2000). In addition literature of knowledge transfer studies also show that national levelfactors have a significant influence on the transfer. However, further exploration of theinfluence of national environmental factors on international kaizen transfer is required
due to following reasons. Aside from some studies that were mentioned previously,
even though national level factors have been studied to have an important impact asshown in these sections, there are relatively few studies that investigated therelationships between national level factors and kaizen transfer. This may be because
those factors especially the cultural aspects are rarely visible within the quantitative
methods that have dominated in published studies. The deeper reason for theoccurrence of these factors, i.e. an explanation of why and how they play a role, isonly superficially known. For this study, and in line with the exploratory nature of it,
the central research question was formulated as: what national level factors influence
the transfer of kaizen?
4. Methodology
Since the purpose of this study is to explore which national level factors influence thetransfer of kaizen, the survey method is appropriate. Especially due to the exploratory
nature, versus a testing or confirmation approach, a choice was made to use survey
interviewing (Fowler, 2009, Fowler and Mangione, 1990).
4.1

Survey instrument

Due to subjectivity of answers it was not possible to develop absolute measures ofnational level factors. However, the purpose of the study was to explore and therefore
relative perceived differences in national environments were sufficient.
The survey contained a set of structured questions to enhance consistency ininterview approach and thus reliability. The purpose of the initial set of structured
questions was to identify the most important national level factors. Three examples ofthese structured questions are provided below showing a difference in the most10

broadly stated question (looking for perceptions on general national differences, i.e.
compared to any other country), to differences between Japan and the Netherlands(since the research is related to a Japanese subsidiary in the Netherlands), to a more
specific question on the Dutch environment.
Which countries do you perceive as easier or more difficult to transfer kaizen
compared with the Netherlands?



What are differences between Dutch and Japanese companies regarding theimplementation of kaizen?



Which Dutch specific national factors affect the process of internationaltransfer of kaizen and how do these factors affect the transfer process?

When the reasoning behind something is of interest, when a narrative form is required
because answers are virtually impossible to reduce to a few words, or when systematic
information is gathered about a potentially complicated situation, then open-ended
questions are preferred (Fowler, 1995). Therefore, the survey also contained several
open questions that allowed probing deeper into issues identified by the respondent.
The purpose of the probing questions was to reach a deeper level of understanding
regarding the why and how of the identified national level factors.
4.2

Sample selection

A list of Japanese manufacturers in the Netherlands was obtained from the website of
the Netherlands Foreign Investment Agency (NFIA). Another list of Japanesemanufacturers in the Netherlands was obtained from JETRO. The two lists werecombined which led to a list of 52 companies, i.e. the population for the study. Since
this number was relatively small, it was decided to contact all companies forparticipation in the research rather than taking a sample.
Initial contact with the companies was made by phone. Five companies had either
recently closed or transferred their operations to other countries. This reduced the
population to 47 companies with manufacturing activities in the Netherlands. Out ofthese, 32 companies declined to cooperate. Thus, fifteen companies agreed tocooperate with the research project. General characteristics of these companies areshown in Table 1.

11

Table 1. General case company characteristics
Case

Products

Employees

Employees
consolidatedA

Construction machinery

between 100-500

16,117

B

Slide fasters

less than 100

38,399C

FA-related apparatuses

between 100-500

35,045

D

Stainless steel welding materials

less than 100

34,459E

Photosensitive

for more than 500

76,358materials

photography
F

Electrodes

less than 100

120

G

Safe instrumentation systems

more than 500

20,266H

Foodless than 100

15,822I

Forklifts

more than 500

33,164J

Molded articles of piocelanless than 100

1,372

K

Safety glass

between 100-500

19,742

L

Plastic building materials

less than 100

19,742

M

Polyolefin foams

between 100-500

19,742

N

Attaching shrink labels and cap less than 100

2,368

seals
O

Thin Steel Sheets

4.3

Respondent selection

less than 100

4,607

In each company between one and five respondents were interviewed. All of theinterviews were recorded and transcribed. Respondents were selected based upon theirexperience of working abroad, and thus their ability to perceive national level
influences. This criterion was applied because an issue of concern is the possibility ofstereotyping, although some aspects of a stereotype may be accurate (Triandis, 1994,
p.138). In general, the more contact with another group, the more accurate thecomparative judgment (Triandis, 1994, p.138). Another criterion applied torespondents was that they had sufficient knowledge of kaizen. This effectively meantthat respondents were middle- and top-managers. The respondents included both
Japanese and Dutch citizens, eliminating a potential bias from a specific national
12

group.
4.4

Data analysis methods

The data was analysed by looking for patterns in the answers. Thus, a first level ofanalysis looked for common elements across all companies. Two factors were foundthat were identified across the companies as national level factors.
Next, a second level of analysis was conducted to look for potential
differentiating factors which included: company size, the time period the company had
been implementing kaizen, the degree of completion of kaizen transfer, the number ofoverseas subsidiaries, and the nationality of the CEO. No patterns were found in thissecond level analysis but this finding should be cautiously interpreted due to thelimited number of respondents overall.
5. Data
Since the data was collected through an open-format survey interview, the result is awide range of possible answers. Tables 2 and 3 provide illustrative information on
answers for the question which compares other countries to the Netherlands. Table 4
provides insight into the perception of Dutch specific national level factors. The
analysis of patterns in the responses led to the identification of two main factors which
influenced the success of kaizen transfer and which were perceived by the respondents
as being national level factors. The two factors are level of discipline of employees andeagerness of employees. Table 4 provides illustrative comments from the respondents
that related to these two factors. Due to the emphasis on national level factors in theinterviews, it can be concluded that the two factors are perceived by respondents to benational level differences compared to organisation level differences.
Table 2. Countries that are perceived as easier to transfer kaizen to compared with the
Netherlands
Country

Responses

Number oftimes
mentioned

China

Chinese are hungry for anything. They are enthusiastic about
134something which they can acquire techniques, knowledge andexperience. (Company A/Project Manager)
China has a mentality to enjoy their work. It’s important forpeople to find interests to do these activities. I believe that
Chinese people have it. (Company K/Vice President)
China has the basic idea. (Company I/Production Manager)
China has good background for kaizen that labours are highquality and young. (Company A/General Manager)
East Europe

I visit Poland very often and visited about 50 companies. I’ve

(Czech Republicseen many suppliers found they were very diligent. They wereand Slovakia)

completely different from other countries. People are diligent

5and have a hungry-sprit. (Company A/Project Manager)
Polish have diligence with relatively cheap labour costs.
(Company A/General Manager)
Czech and Slovakian have a hungry sprit but still less diligent
than Polish. (Company A/Project Leader)
I think countries in Eastern Europe where people have desire
to improve their own capabilities. It’s important for employees
to have it even it’s for earning extra money or having a
promotion. (Company I/Production Manager)
Maybe some countries in the East Europe because theireconomy is growing so people are motivated. Moreover, themanagement systems are not yet established; so they are more
likely to accept new management systems. (Company
B/Production Leader)
North European

In Sweden, people are very motivated to improve these items

countries (UKeven those are outside their job description. (Company

and Scandinavian

D/Production Manager)

countries)

Scandinavian countries. They focus on the quality. (Company
J/Managing Director)
Scandinavian countries. They are very social culture. They go
144

together to sauna. They do many social activities. They arevery close to each other when they do something. (Company
G/QSE Manager)
I think those people are open to other cultures and I would saythat they are eager to learn. (Company E/Staff Manager)
US

US is very keen on safety, rules and everything that they do.

1

They have written rules so they are very keen on this. If they
implement like this they will make it as a rule and everybody
will follow this rule. (Company D/Production Manager)
UK

UK is a mature country. They have the way they work and they2

do things that are very labour oriented which is make it easier
to do. (Company G/QSE Manager)
As far as the language is concerned, England is one of the
choices. (Company A/General Manager)
Germany

Very strict for the quality, cost and waste. (Company

4

B/Production Leader)
Germany is an industrialised country. I think Germans are very
proud of what they do and what they produce; so the mentality
is a little stronger when they are working on the shop floor.
(Company J/Managing Director)
You need a country with commitment. I think German can be.
If I look at the German cars, they learned from Japanesequickly for example JIT deliveries. They were really eager tolearn from that methodology. (Company E/Plant Manager)
In Germany, people are very strict. They are really doing what
they are really taught. The boss is really the boss and theyknock on the door before they enter. Boss asked to do this andthey are really doing this. (Company F/Production Manager)
Korea

I think it’s easier to develop kaizen mentality in Asian
countries like in Korea. Let’s say the personal-initiative, they
do things which are not written down. They take care aboutothers, like sense of belonging exists. (Company F/Managing
15

2

Director)
I think Korea. I think the hungry sprit is necessary. They are
motivated to do things. They can think about many ideas for
improvements. (Company F/Production Advisor)
South East Asia

I think the problem that we have here in Holland is that people

6

are stubborn and they want to do things in their own way. In
Asia, people follow the rules. They tend to do things without
continuously discussing things with managers. Here, people
want to discuss everything. (Company M/Managing Director)
I think Asia. (Company E/Factory Manager)
Vietnam. This is what comes to my mind. Or perhaps Thailand.
In these countries people are obedient and let’s say…they havea mentality to do things in a long-term. They have similar
mentality to Japanese. They are easier to get familiar withJapanesesystems

andprocesses.

(Company

I/Senior

Production Engineer)
South East Asia is suitable I think. For example Vietnam andThailand. Their production techniques are not yet established;so there are many rooms for improvement. They are open to
accept new techniques abroad. (Company F/Production
Advisor)Table 3. Countries that are perceived as more difficult to transfer kaizen to comparedwith the Netherlands
Responses

Number oftimes
mentioned

Germany

Germans tend to do jobs which are written in the job description. Theircharacteristics are stubborn I think. (Company A/General Manager)
Germany because they have bureaucratic mind-sets. (Company G/QSEManager)
Germany is special country. It could work because their disciplines are16

4stronger. They could work as in Japan. It could be successful but manytimes I recognised the conflicts if it is transferred from Japan toGermany. (Company E/Staff Manager)
Since few years ago, I’m responsible for the German factory. I thought
it would be easier to establish this mentality because this is really truethat German workers are much more disciplined and dedicated toperform his job than Dutch. They are like Japanese. Japanese are very
dedicated to produce beautiful and high quality products. However, thebest cars still come from Germany. They have a dedication for thequality. I thought it must be better bases for kaizen but it was not true
because I tried it. In Germany, job description is like 5 pages and if it’s
not on the job descriptions, people say “umm, I don't have to do it”.
They like the job to be black and white. (Company C/ Managing
Director)South

Indonesians are too relaxed. People from hot countries might have

East Asia

similar characteristics. Some don’t even come to the factory. They don't

3

have much responsibility to their job. (Company A/General Manager)
It is country like Malaysia and those Asian countries with a lot of
power distance. The big power distance that is difficult to implementkaizen. (Company C/Managing Director)
We have been in Indonesia for 25 years. What I found is that people are
too relaxed there and found it difficult to give training to key people
under this circumstance. (Company A/Planning Advisor)
US

US. They are contract based society and they only do things which are2

written down. (Company D/Managing Director)
In the US, there are locations where labour union is strong like areaaround Detroit. (Company A/General Manager)
India

People are more relaxed and not so strict. Rules are important but
socialisation is even more important.
(Company B/Managing Director)
India. We have a factory since 1980 and we are having problems there.
(Company A/General Manager)172Southern

In the South of Europe, discipline is less. They live day by day.

Europe(Company E/Staff Manager)(France,

Difficult for foreigners to be accepted. (Company A/General Manager)

Italy

They are taking things very easy. If you want to do business or if you

Spain)

want to have answer for the question, you can wait for a month. They
have less discipline which is necessary for doing kaizen activities.
(Company O/Managing Director)
I think countries where shop floor workers do what they are told. So
they are not investing in thinking about how it could be done better but
just follow what is said by the shop floor management. (Company
C/Managing Director)
Their minds are relaxed. They are like if we couldn’t finish today we’llfinish tomorrow, don’t worry. (Company N/Production Manager)
Especially in Southern countries they have this kind of pride or
arrogance. Probably because they are big countries and they feelpowerful. (Company E/Staff Manager)
In France and Italy, boss rules the world so they don’t’ have muchinterest in the voice of employees. They don’t care. (Company G/QSEManager)I think like Italians and French. I felt like that work is not part of theirlife. They work for life. I think it is difficult. (Company C/Production
manager)I think Latin countries maybe. Again this is just a general my feeling
generally Latin people are not serious about anything relaxed about
work, life, family. (Company F/Production manager)

East

They are former communist countries where their own initiative is

Europenever rewarded. So they do what they are accustomed to do but tochange that mentality is more difficult. (Company B/Managing
Director)

Table 4. Examples of interview responses
FactorExample statement provided in interview
18

9Discipline Too much freedom in thinking and action. The point is that for kaizen especiallykaizen team activities, if everyone has their strong own will it has to be convinced
which is very time consuming. Obedient and discipline in Japan is much more. Dutch
people are that everyone has their very strong opinion and they want to express it.
They do it even there is no added value. (Company E/Staff Manager)
Strong point of the Dutch worker is that they challenge for everything. And the Dutch
are much more than Japanese. On the other hand, if there are some engineers who
made a method and told operators to follow, it is their bad habit that they
immediately challenge and say that “no I know the better way”. (Company C/General
Manager)Lack of discipline. This is the key but we have difficulties. Also if you want to do a
PDCA cycle well, discipline is very important. Stick to the rules, stick to thestandard. (Company C/General Manager)
I think in the Netherlands it is very difficult. This comes mainly from lack of
discipline and also the attention that people have to the job. That’s why I think not somany companies do succeed. We shouldn’t say too negatively about lack of discipline
but …not many people want to do a good job as same as in Japan. They are morerelaxed and sometimes not so necessary to do things strictly. (Company C/Managing
Director)
Eagerness

Commitment to the company is different [between Japanese and Western people]. I
think for Japanese people …ego is not so large, so when they are asked to do which is
not part of their job or asked to do something extra, longer hours without pay, my
experience is Japanese person will automatically do that whereas Western person are
generally, initially openly complains, requests more money or you know so theirpersonal ego is more. So basically the attitude towards importance of themselves orthe importance of the company is different. (Company O/Managing Director)
The starting point is different. It is normal for us to do something which is notdescribed in the job description in Japan, but here, people think like why we shouldhave to do something which is not part of our job. (Company D/Production Manager)
Asking them to follow something which is not written in the job description isdifficult. They defensively protect their own territory and they are not cooperative toshare information with other people. They are not good at working in other people's
19territory. (Company F/Vice President)
In Germany, the job description is like five pages and if something is not on the job
descriptions, people say ‘umm, I don't have to do’. They like the job to be black andwhite. (Company C/Managing Director)
The best example would be for instance, when the machine breaks down, especiallyduring the night shifts, most of the time maintenance personnel are not there. There isa huge difference between Dutch and Japanese on how to react in this situation.
Japanese operators working in Japanese mother factory, when they face the machine
breakdown, they will try to fix it to produce 20 or 30 products until the next shift
starts in the morning. In contrast, Dutch operators tend to think that ‘I am notmaintenance, why should I fix it.’ I hear this very often even from Dutch managers. If
I take a look at the Japanese factory, each individual is thinking what I can improvefor the company, often people refer this as loyalty to the company. I don't see thishere in Dutch factory. (Company I/Production manager)

6. Discussion
In this section, the findings with regard to the two national level factors, i.e. level ofdiscipline of employees (6.1) and eagerness of employees (6.2) will be discussed.
Their combined influence on kaizen transfer will be discussed in section 5.3.
6.1

Employees’ level of discipline

Respondents indicated that the level of discipline of employees, which was perceived
as a national level factor, has a big influence on the transfer of kaizen to theNetherlands. How the level of discipline plays a role can be determined from the way
it was identified by respondents. For example, some respondents perceived certain
countries as easier for kaizen transfer compared to the Netherlands because theemployees in such countries were considered more obedient. As an illustration, an
executive senior production engineer from Company I indicated that easier countries
for transferring kaizen are “South-East Asian countries such as Vietnam and Thailand.
People in those countries are obedient like the Japanese.” This obedient aspect was not
limited to Asian countries as the quote from the production manager from Company D
illustrates who identified Germany as a better country for transferring kaizen
20

compared to the Netherlands: “In Germany, they are very strict. They are really doing
what they are really told.” Similarly, the staff manager of Company E stated, “In
Germany, kaizen could work because their discipline is stronger. They could do kaizen
with discipline similar to in Japan.” Another example comes from the production
leader from Company B, who, when talking about Germany, said, “The boss is reallythe boss and they knock on the door before they enter and the boss asks to do this andthey are really doing this.” The general production manager of Company G said
something similar about Germany, “They listen to their manager.” Some countries
were perceived as having employee attitudes with less discipline than in the
Netherlands and consequently they were perceived as more difficult for transferringkaizen compared to the Netherlands. For example, Southern European countries such
as Italy and Spain were placed in this category.
Based on these findings it can be concluded that the ‘level of discipline of
employees’ was considered an important national level factor. This factor relates togeneral attitudes of employees in a country referring to the ease with which employees
do what they are told. In some countries, employees follow instructions strictly, forexample in Japan and Germany. While in other countries, employees do not always
follow instructions precisely or question the instructions, for example in the
Netherlands. It is easier to transfer kaizen to countries in which employees have a highlevel of discipline than to countries where employees have a low level of discipline.
The reason why the level of discipline is important for the transfer of kaizen
might relate especially to the aspect of transfer, i.e. introducing something new. Whensomething new is introduced, it requires a change from the existing routines. In
countries where employees are disciplined and strictly follow orders, the new routines
can be ‘enforced’ through discipline. In countries where employees do not strictly
follow orders it is much harder to establish the new, kaizen related, routines because
when employees do not accept the new routines, they will not follow them.
6.2

Eagerness of employees

The second common factor identified by respondents was the eagerness of employees.
How the level of eagerness of employees plays a role can be determined from thedifferent ways in which respondents identified this concept. For example, several
21

respondents noted that it is easier to transfer kaizen to East Asian countries comparedto the Netherlands because employees in East Asia have a ‘hungry mentality’, i.e. they
are eager to do the work. As an illustration, the general manager of Company D stated,“I think that the hungry spirit is necessary. In those countries people are hungry formoney so they can think about many ideas for improvement.” Another example comesfrom the production manager of Company L who stated, “Asian countries are easier. I
think that in those countries people try to work hard to improve themselves. For
instance, if the company pays for overtime work, people earn more money as they
improve their ability. They have a hungry spirit to learn new things.” The eagerness of
employees was not only identified for Asian countries. Some respondents mentionedthat several Scandinavian countries would be easier for kaizen transfer compared to
the Netherlands due to eagerness. For example, a staff manager of Company E statedabout employees in Scandinavian countries; “I would say they are eager to learn.”Differences in national levels of eagerness of employees were also identified as adifference between Japan and the Netherlands. For instance, it was connected with aperception of the employee level of commitment. A manager at Company E stated“The commitment of the people is much higher [in Japan] towards the company.
People are willing to invest also after working hours to have these events to come up
with a proposal to invest time. Here [in the Netherlands] after 4:30pm people are goneto the parking lot and gone home.” In a similar way, Germany was seen as lessattractive for kaizen because job descriptions are very precise and if something is notin the job description, employees do not want to do it. The eagerness of employees in
the US was viewed in a similar manner as in the Netherlands, i.e. employees wereperceived to defensively define their job responsibility, i.e. limit their responsibilities
to what is in the contract. This is in contrast to in particular Asian countries. The
production advisor of Company D said, “I think it is easier to develop the kaizen
mentality in Asian countries like Korea, China, Singapore and Thailand. They dothings which are not written down.”
Based on these findings it can be concluded that the ‘eagerness of employees’
was considered an important national level factor. This factor relates to general
attitudes of employees in a country referring to a proactive approach of employees to
not just do their job but to go above and beyond what is strictly speaking required or22mentioned in their contract. Two different types of underlying motives for national
level eagerness of employees were found in the case interviews. For some countries
the eagerness aspect was explained by respondents in economic terms. This means that
employees are residents of an economically deprived country and are motivated to
improve their situation. This leads to eagerness as displayed in their jobs. Examples ofcountries where this occurs are Asian countries such as Thailand, urban areas in China,
and East-European countries. For another set of countries eagerness was explained byrespondents as being related to a certain level of commitment to the company. Thislevel of commitment is the result of national employment systems and how people aretreated. For example, in Japan, the situation of life-time employment plays a very
important role. When Japanese employees start their working career, they generally
expect to work in the same company for a lifetime. This mentality leads people to havea feeling that they are sharing their employment success with the success of thecompany they are working for. In this situation, employees are committed to thewelfare of the company and tend to demonstrate an eagerness to go beyond strictly
defined job descriptions. In several other economically advanced nations such as the
Netherlands and Germany this eagerness is at a much lower level than in Japan. It iseasier to transfer kaizen to countries in which employees have a high level ofeagerness than to countries where employees have a low level of eagerness.
The reason why the eagerness of employees is important for the transfer of kaizen
might especially relate to specific characteristics of kaizen. Brunet and New (2003)
define kaizen as continuous improvement involving activities that are outside of thecontributor’s explicit roles. A similar idea has been mentioned by Hayashi (1994).
Thus, kaizen relates to a mentality of employees where they try to continuously
improve the company’s performance even when it is not part of their job description.
Countries where employees stick to the exact description of their job, such as the
Netherlands and Germany, will present challenges for implementing kaizen. While incountries where employees are eager to do additional things, it will be relatively easy
to implement kaizen.
6.3

International transfer of kaizen

The previous two sections illustrate the two main national level factors which were23

perceived by the respondents as influencing the transfer of kaizen. Although theinterviews were set-up in an open format, i.e. any type of answer could have been
provided initially by respondents, the answers are primarily culture oriented. Thus, afirst finding is that cultural factors are the most important factors for the transfer ofkaizen. The two factors can be combined in a graph to illustrate their combined impact
on the transfer of kaizen. This is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Ease of transferring kaizen.
Figure 2 illustrates that it is easier to transfer kaizen to another country where both thelevel of eagerness of employees as well as the level of discipline of employees arehigh. This is the situation in Japan where kaizen was developed. Based on the
responses in the cases Thailand, the Netherlands and Germany have been added in thegraph. Based on a relatively low level of eagerness of employees as well as a relatively
low level of discipline of employees, the Netherlands is a relatively difficult country
for transfer of kaizen. Germany might be a little better due to a high level of disciplineof employees but it suffers from a relatively low level of eagerness of employees.
Similarly, Thailand might be attractive from a perspective of a high level of eagernessof employees but it suffers from a relatively low level of discipline of employees.
24For companies that want to transfer or adopt kaizen, it is important to evaluate thelevel of eagerness of employees as well as the level of discipline of employees todetermine the ease with which kaizen can be transferred or adopted. For countries in
the lower left part of Figure 1 this does not mean that kaizen cannot be transferred or
adopted but it will take more effort than for countries that are positioned in the top
right part of Figure 2.

7. Conclusions
The purpose of this research study was to examine the international transfer of kaizen.
The central research question was formulated as: what national level factors influence
the transfer of kaizen?
In the study, an inductive case study approach was followed with semi-structured
interviews. The study focused on Japanese subsidiaries in the Netherlands. A total of
15 companies participated in the research. The conclusions of the study should becautiously interpreted as the number of respondents was relatively low, therespondents included only Japanese and Dutch citizens, and for example no companies
with more than 500 employees were included.
It can be concluded that respondents perceived two national level factors, which
are related to national culture, to be the most important. One factor is the level ofeagerness of employees which is positively associated with the ease of kaizen transfer.
The other factor is the level of discipline of employees which is also positively
associated with the ease of kaizen transfer. The level of eagerness can be affected bypoor economic conditions. For countries which are economically advanced, it isconnected with the level of commitment that employees have to the company. Basedon these findings, it can also be concluded that the Netherlands is perceived to be oneof the more challenging countries for kaizen transfer.
It is recommended that future research focuses on a further operationalisation of
the two national level concepts in this study, i.e. eagerness and discipline, and test therelationship with ease of kaizen transfer. Future research should also look more
specifically at the two factors and how they relate to previously identified culturaldimensions, see e.g. Hofstede (2001). Additionally, the study can be expanded to othercountries. In that case it is recommended to use more respondents, have respondents of25

multiple nationalities who are able to evaluate comparative national differences, and toinclude a wider range of company sizes.
Keeping in mind the methodological constraints, companies benefit from thisresearch because it contributes to understanding how easy it will be to transfer kaizen.
Having this understanding allows companies to set more realistic expectations withregard to kaizen implementation.

References
Adler, P.S. (1999), “Building better bureaucracies”, Academy of Management Executive,
Vol.13, No.4, pp. 36-47.
Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. (1996), “Two types of bureaucracies: enabling and coercive”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.41(March), pp.61-89.
Ambos, T.C. and Ambos, B. (2009), “The impact of distance on knowledge transfer
effectiveness in multinational corporations”, Journal of International Management, Vol.15,
No.1, pp.1-14.
Aoki, K. (2008), “Transferring Japanese kaizen activities to overseas plants in China”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.28, No. 6, pp.518539.
Babson, S. (1995), “Restructuring the workplace: post-Fordism or return of the foreman?”
Asher, R. and Edsforth, R. (Eds.), Autowork, State University of New York Press, Albany,
pp.227-256.
Beechler, S. and Yang, J.Z. (1994), “The transfer of Japanese-style management to American
subsidiaries: contingencies, constraints, and competencies”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 467-491.
Bessant, J. (2003), High-involvement innovation: Building and sustaining competitive
advantage through continuous change, Wiley, Chichester.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., and Gallagher, M. (2001), “An evolutionary model of continuous
improvement behaviour”, Technovation, Vol.21, No.2, pp. 67-77.
Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., Gilbert, J., Harding, R., and Webb, S. (1994), “Rediscoveringcontinuous improvement”, Technovation, Vol.14, No.1, pp.17-29.
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., and Triandis, H. C. (2002), “Cultural Variations
26

in the Cross-Border Transfer of Organizational Knowledge: An Integrative Framework”,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol.27, No.2, pp.204-221.
Boer, H., Berger, A., Chapman, R., and Gertsen, F. (Eds.) (2000), CI changes: from suggestion
box to organisational learning. Continuous improvement in Europe and Australia,
Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.
Brunet, A.P. and New, S. (2003), “Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study”, International Journalof Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp. 1426-1446.
Burns, T., and Stalker, G. M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications,London.
Chen, J., Sun, P.Y.T. and McQueen, R.J. (2010), “The impact of national cultures on structured
knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.14, No.2, pp. 228-242.
Choy, C.L. and Jain, H.C. (1987), “Japanese management in Singapore: Convergence ofhuman resource management practices”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol.4, No.2,
pp.73-89.
Courtright, J. A., Fairhurst, G. T., and Rogers, L. E. (1989), “Interaction patterns in organicand mechanistic systems”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol.32, No.4, pp.773-802.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness
and structural design”, Management Science, Vol.32, No.5, pp.554-571.
Dahlgaard, J.J., Kristensen, K., Kanji, G.K., Juhl, H.J., and Sohal, A.S. (1998), “Quality
management practices: a comparative study between East and West”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.15, No.8/9, pp.812-826
de Jager, B., Minnie, C., de Jager, J., Welgemoed, M., Bessant, J., and Francis, D. (2004),“Enabling continuous improvement: a case study of implementation”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.15, No.4, pp.315-324.
de Macedo-Soares, T. D. L. v. A., and Lucas, D. C. (1996), “Key quality management
practices of leading firms in Brazil: findings of a pilot-study”, The TQM Magazine, Vol.8,
No.4, pp.55-70.
Duan, Y., Nie, W., and Coakes, E. (2010), “Identifying key factors affecting transnational
knowledge transfer”, Information & Management, Vol.47, No.7/8, pp.356-363.
Flaherty, M.T. (1986), “Coordinating international manufacturing and technology”, Porter,
M.E. (Eds.), Competition in global industries, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
pp.83-110.
27

Flaherty, M.T. (1996), Global Operations Management. Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Flynn, B. B., and Saladin, B. (2006), “Relevance of Baldridge constructs in an international
context: A study of national culture”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.24, No.5,
pp.583-603.
Fowler, F.J. (1995), Improving survey questions, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Fowler, F.J. (2009), Survey research methods, 4th edition, Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
Fowler, F.J. and Mangione, T.W. (1990), Standardized survey interviewing, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks.
Fujimoto, T. (1997), Seisan shisutemu no shinkaron (Evolutionary Theory of Production
Systems) Yuhikaku, Tokyo.
Fukuda, K.J. (1988), Japanese Style Management Transferred: The Experience of East Asia.
Routledge, New York.
Hayashi, Y. (1994), Ibunka interface no keiei: kokusai ka to nihonnteki keiei, Nihon keizak
shinbun sha, Tokyo.
Henderson, B.A and Larco, J.L. (2003), Lean transformation, How to change your business
into a lean enterprise, The Oaklea Press, Richmond.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, andorganizations across nations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hong, J.F.L., Easterby-Smith, M., and Snell, R.S. (2006), “Transferring organizational
learning systems to Japanese subsidiaries in China”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol.43, No.5, pp. 1027-1058.
Huntzinger, J. (2002), “The Roots of Lean - Training Within. Industry: The Origin of Japanesemanagement and Kaizen”, Target, Vol.18, No.1, pp.6-19.

Imai, M. (1986), KAIZEN: The Key to Japan's Competitive Success, Random House
Business Division, New York.
Kayes, D.C., Kayes, A. B., and Yamazaki, Y. (2005), “Essential competencies for crosscultural knowledge absorption”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.20, No.7,
pp.578-589.
Kenney, M. and Florida, R.L. (1993), Beyond mass production: The Japanese system and its
transfer to the US, Oxford University Press, New York.
Kenney, M. and Florida, R.L. (1995), “The transfer of Japanese management styles in two U.S.
transplant industries: autos and electronics”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.32, No.6,
28

pp.789-802.
Kondo, Y. (1990), Key points in quality control training courses for managers, Total Quality
Management, Vol.1, No.3, pp.309-319.
Kono, T. (1982), Japanese management philosophy: can it be exported? Long Range Planning,
Vol.15, No.3, pp. 90-102.
Lagrosen, S. (2002), “Quality management in Europe: a cultural perspective”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol.14, No.5, pp.275-283.
Lagrosen, S. (2003), “Exploring the impact of culture on quality management”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.20, No.4, pp.473-487.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota way. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Liker, J., and Morgan, J. (2006), “The Toyota way in services: the case of lean productdevelopment”, The Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol.20, No.2, pp.5-20.
Mathews, B.P., Ueno, A., Kekäle, T., Repka, M., Pereira, Z.P., and Silva, G. (2001), “European
quality management practices: The impact of national culture”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol.18, No.7, pp.692-707.
Naor, M., Goldstein, S. M., Linderman, K. W. and Schroeder, R. G. (2008), “The role ofculture as driver of quality management and performance: infrastructure versus corequality practices.” Decision Sciences, Vol.39 No.4, pp. 671-702.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol.5, No.1, pp.14-37.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University
press, New York.
Ohmae, K. (1985), Triad power, the coming shape of global competition, The Free Press, NewYork.
Oliver, N., and Wilkinson, B. (1992), The Japanization of British industry : new developmentsin the 1990s, Blackwell, Oxford.
Parry, M. E., and Song, X. M. (1993), “Determinants of R&D-Marketing integration in hightech Japanese firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.10, No.1, pp.4-22.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1987), “Context and action in the transformation of the firm”, Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol.24, No.6, pp.649-670.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1990), Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice,
Organization Science, Vol.1, No.3, pp.267-292.
29

Recht, R. and Wilderom, C. (1998), “Kaizen and culture: on the transferability of Japanesesuggestion systems”, International Business Review, Vol.7, No.1, pp.7-22.
Savolainen, T. I. (1999), Cycles of continuous improvement: Realizing competitive
advantages through quality. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol.19, No.11, pp.1203-1222.
Schroeder, D., and Robinson, A. (1991), “America's most successful export to Japan:
continuous improvement programs”, Sloan Management Review, Vol.32, No.3, pp.67-81.
Shimada, H. (1990), The Economics of Humanware, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo.
Sousa-Poza, A., Nystrom H., and Wiebe, H. (2001), “A cross-cultural study of the differing
effects of corporate culture on TQM in three countries”, International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol.18, No.7, pp.744-761.
Szulanski, G. (1996). “Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of bestpractice within the firm”. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue,
pp. 27-43.
Tata, J., and Prasad, S. (1998), “Cultural and structural constraints on total quality
management implementation”, Total Quality Management, Vol.9, No.8, pp.703-710.
Triandis, H.C. (1994), Culture and social behaviour, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.P. and Lyles, M.A. (2008), “Inter- and intra-organizational knowledgetransfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol.45, No.4, pp. 815-38.
Vecchi, A and Brennan, L. (2011), “Quality management: a cross-cultural perspective based on
the GLOBE framework”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol.31, No.5, pp.527 -553.
Welch, D.E. and Welch, L.S. (2008), “The importance of language in international knowledgetransfer”, Management International Review, Vol.48, No.3, pp.339-360
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1991), The machine that changed the world: the storyof lean production. Harper Perennial, New York.
Yokozawa, K., Steenhuis, H.J. and de Bruijn, E.J. (2010), “Recent experience with transferring
Japanese management systems abroad”, Journal of Strategic Management Studies, Vol.2,
No.1, pp.1-16.

30