Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T03:32:44.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Japanese Labels on the Perceived Relevance of Lean Production Practices in a Russian Bank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2020

Valery Yakubovich Open the ORCID record for Valery Yakubovich [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniela Lup Open the ORCID record for Daniela Lup [Opens in a new window]
Valery Yakubovich*
Affiliation:
ESSEC Business School, France
Daniela Lup
Affiliation:
ESCP Business School, France
*
Corresponding author: Valery Yakubovich (yakubovich@essec.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate how the relevance of the Lean Production System (LPS) as perceived by employees of a Russian bank depends on whether LPS practices are labeled with transliterated original Japanese words or translated Russian words. Building on organizational translation scholarship contextualized to Russia, we formulate hypotheses about the mechanism through which labels affect the perceived relevance of practices. The results of an experimental study situated in a Russian bank show that transliterated Japanese labels have a negative impact on the perceived relevance of LPS practices by Russian employees. Further analysis reveals that this negative perception is fully mediated by the label's semantic fit, that is, the extent to which the label complies with the linguistic codes of the Russian language. Specifically, we find that, on average, the transliterated Japanese labels have a lower semantic fit than the translated Russian labels, and this difference in semantic fit explains the Japanese labels’ lower relevance as perceived by the bank's employees. By unpacking the causal effect of the labels used for management practices on the practices’ perceived relevance, this study advances our understanding of how organizations could influence employees’ acceptance of foreign management practices.

摘要

针对俄罗斯银行中的员工感知的精益生产系统的关联性，我们研究了它如何取决于精益生产系统实践是用被转译的日本原语词还是用俄语的翻译词来标识。基于在俄罗斯情境下的组织翻译的学术研究，我们形成了有关标签影响感知的实践关联性的机制的假设。在俄罗斯银行所开展的一项实验研究的结果表明，被转译的日本标签对于员工知觉到的精益生产实践的关联性具有负面效应。进一步分析发现，这种负面感知完全被标签的语义契合度所中介，语义契合度是指标签符合俄罗斯语言代码的程度。具体而言，我们发现转译的日本标签比翻译的俄罗斯标签的语义契合度更低，而语义契合度的差异解释了日本标签被银行员工感知的关联性更低。通过剖析所采用的管理实践的标签与员工感知的关联性之间的因果关系，本研究推动了我们对于组织怎样影响员工接受国外管理实践的影响。

Аннотация

Мы исследуем, каким образом важность системы бережливого производства (LPS) в восприятии сотрудников российского банка зависит от того, обозначены ли методы бережливого производства (LPS) с помощью транслитерации оригинальных японских слов или перевода русскими словами. Опираясь на научные исследования в области организационного перевода в контексте России, мы формулируем гипотезы о механизме, с помощью которого термины влияют на восприятие актуальности методов. Результаты экспериментального исследования, проведенного в российском банке, показывают, что транслитерация японских терминов отрицательно влияет на восприятие актуальности методов LPS российскими сотрудниками. Дальнейший анализ показывает, что это негативное восприятие полностью зависит от семантического соответствия термина, а именно от степени его соответствия лингвистическим кодам русского языка. В частности, мы приходим к выводу о том, что транслитерация японских терминов обычно ведет к неполному семантическому соответствию, по сравнению с переведенными русскими терминами, и это различие в семантическом соответствии объясняет более низкую значимость японских терминов с точки зрения сотрудников банка. На основе изучения причинно-следственной связи между терминами, которые используются в методах управления, и восприятием актуальности методов, это исследование расширяет наше понимание того, каким образом организации могут повлиять на сотрудников для принятия иностранных методов управления

Resumen

Investigamos cómo la relevancia del sistema de producción ajustada (LPS) según lo perciben los empleados de un banco ruso depende de si las prácticas de LPS son etiquetadas con palabras japonesas transliteradas o traducidas a palabras rusas. Basándonos en los estudios sobre la traducción organizacional contextualizada en Rusia, formulamos hipótesis sobre el mecanismo mediante el cual las etiquetas afectan la relevancia percibida de las prácticas. Los resultados de un estudio experimental realizado en un banco ruso muestras que las etiquetas japonesas transliteradas tienen un impacto negativo en la relevancia percibida de las prácticas de LPS por los empleados rusos. Un análisis posterior revela que esta percepción negativa esta mediada totalmente por el ajuste semántico de la etiqueta, es decir, el grado en que la etiqueta cumple con los códigos lingüísticos del lenguaje ruso. Especialmente, encontramos que, en promedio las etiquetas japonesas transliteradas tienen un ajuste semántico más bajo que las etiquetas traducidas a ruso, y que esta diferencia en el ajuste semántico explica la baja relevancia de las etiquetas japonesas según la perciben los empleados del banco. Al desentrañar el efecto casual de las etiquetas usadas para las prácticas gerenciales en la relevancia percibida de las prácticas, este estudio avanza nuestro entendimiento de cómo las organizaciones pueden influir la aceptación de los empleados a prácticas gerenciales extranjeras.

Keywords

field experimentlanguagelean productionmanagement practicesorganizational transitionRussiasemantic fit现场实验语言精益生产管理实践组织翻译俄罗斯语义契合度полевой экспериментязыкбережливое производствометоды управленияорганизационное преобразованиеРоссиясемантическое соответствиеexperimento de campolenguajeproducción ajustadaprácticas gerencialestransición organizacionalRusiaajuste semántico
Type
Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , December 2020 , pp. 1057 - 1083
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The International Association for Chinese Management Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

ACCEPTED BY Senior Editor Maral Muratbekova-Touron

References

REFERENCES

Antons, D., & Piller, F. T. 2015. Opening the black box of ‘not invented here’: Attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(2): 193–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakatina, D., Duvieusart, J. P., Klintsov, V., Krogman, K., Remes, J., Shvakman, I., & Solzhenitsyn, Y. 2009. Lean Russia: Sustaining economic growth through improved productivity. McKinsey Report. [Cited 14 November 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/lean-russia-sustaining-economic-growthGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beissinger, M. R. 1988. Scientific management, socialist discipline, and Soviet power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Berliner, J. S. 1988. Soviet management from Stalin to Gorbachev: A comparison of the Harvard Project and SIP interviews. In Berliner, J. S. (Ed.), Soviet industry from Stalin to Gorbachev: Essays on management and innovation: 34–79. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Boltrukevich, V., & Rabunets, P. 2015. Analyzing the state and evolution of lean management in Russia. Planet Lean. [Cited 14 November 2019]. Available from URL: https://planet-lean.com/analyzing-the-state-and-evolution-of-lean-management-in-russia/Google Scholar
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the ‘strength’ of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2): 203–221.Google Scholar
Boxenbaum, E., & Pedersen, J. S. 2009. Scandinavian institutionalism: A case of institutional work. In Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.), Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations: 178–204. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannen, M. Y. 2004. When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29(1): 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannen, M. Y., Piekkari, R., & Tietze, S. 2014. The multifaceted role of language in international business: Unpacking the forms, functions and features of a critical challenge to MNC theory and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. 2010. From the editors: Common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. 2014. Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45: 562–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1):155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Souza, L. B., & Pidd, M. 2011. Exploring the barriers to lean health care implementation. Public Money and Management, 31(1): 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, M. F. K., Shekshnia, S. V., Korotov, K., & Florent-Treacy, E. 2005. The new Russian business leaders. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Eden, D. 2017. Field experiments in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4: 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, S. X., & Harzing, A.-W. 2020. Moving beyond the baseline: Exploring the potential of experiments in language research. In Horn, S., Lecomte, P., & Tietze, S. (Eds.), Understanding multilingual workplaces: Methodological, empirical and pedagogic perspectives. London, UK: Routledge publishing.Google Scholar
Francis, J. N., Lam, J. P., & Walls, J. 2002. Executive insights: The impact of linguistic differences on international brand name standardization: A comparison of English and Chinese brand names of fortune-500 companies. Journal of International Marketing, 10(1): 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4): 473–496.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. 2004. Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10): 994–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, N., Kuznetsova, O., & Fink, G. 2008. Russia's long struggle with western terms of management and the concepts behind them. In Tietze, S. (Ed.), International management and language. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holden, N., Kuznetsov, A., & Whitelock, J. 2008. Russia's struggle with the language of marketing in the communist and post-communist eras. Business History, 50(4): 474–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holden, N. J., & Michailova, S. 2014. A more expansive perspective on translation in IB research: Insights from the Russian handbook of knowledge management. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7): 906–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, G. 2014. 20 epic fails in global branding. Inc. Magazine. [Cited 26 November 2019]. Available from URL: https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-20-worst-brand-translations-of-all-time.htmlGoogle Scholar
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2002. Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 215–233.Google Scholar
Kuznetsov, A., & Kuznetsova, O. 2014. Building professional discourse in emerging markets: Language, context and the challenge of sensemaking. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 583–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsov, A., & Kuznetsova, O. 2016. Contextual constraints and the relevance discovery process: Challenges facing knowledge gatekeepers in emerging economies. International Social Science Journal, 66(219–220): 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsov, A., & Yakavenka, H. 2005. Barriers to the absorption of management knowledge in Belarus. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(7): 566–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitzel, J. 1997. Reviewed work: Management and industry in Russia: Formal and informal relations in the period of transition. By Simon Clarke. Slavic Review, 56(1): 159–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liao, H., Toya, K., Lepak, D. P., & Hong, Y. 2009. Do they see eye to eye? Management and employee perspectives of high-performance work systems and influence processes on service quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 371–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDuffie, J. P. 1997. The road to ‘root cause’: Shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly plants. Management Science, 43(4): 479–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDuffie, J. P., & Krafcik, J. 1992. Integrating technology and human resources for high- performance manufacturing: Evidence from the international auto industry. In Kochan, T. A. & Useem, M. (Eds.), Transforming organizations: 209–225. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michailova, S., & Husted, K. 2003. Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California Management Review, 45(3): 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naslund, L., & Pemer, F. 2011. The appropriated language: Dominant stories as a source of organizational inertia. Human Relations, 65(1): 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P., & Schneider, B. 2008. Employee attributions of the ‘why' of HR practices: Their effect on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3): 503–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Outila, V., Piekkari, R., & Mihailova, I. 2019. A discursive void in a cross-language study on Russia: Strategies for negotiating shared meaning. Management and Organization Review, 15(2): 403–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piekkari, R., Tietze, S., & Koskinen, K. 2019. Metaphorical and interlingual translation in moving organizational practices across languages. Organization Studies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0170840619885415Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prokhorov, A. P. 2008. The Russian management model. Moscow, Russia: Skolkovo.Google Scholar
Pshenichnikova, I. 2003. The challenges of socialization in business education: The case of the School of Management, St. Petersburg University. Anthropology of East Europe Review, 21(2): 29–36.Google Scholar
Puffer, S. M. 1995. Shedding the legacy of the red executive: Leadership in Russian enterprises. International Business Review, 4(2): 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. 2011. Two decades of Russian business and management research: An institutional theory perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2): 21–36.Google Scholar
Reiche, B. S., Harzing, A. W., & Pudelko, M. 2015. Why and how does shared language affect subsidiary knowledge inflows? A social identity perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(5): 528–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Røvik, K. A. 2016. Knowledge transfer as translation: Review and elements of an instrumental theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3): 290–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, B., & Zhang, S. 2012. Selecting the right brand name: An examination of tacit and explicit linguistic knowledge in name translations. Journal of Brand Management, 19(8): 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schomaker, M. S., & Zaheer, S. 2014. The role of language in knowledge transfer to geographically dispersed manufacturing operations. Journal of International Management, 20(1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. 2007. Defining and developing measures of lean production. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4): 785–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spear, S., & Bowen, H. K. 1999. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Business Review, 77: 96–108.Google Scholar
Tenzer, H., Terjesen, S., & Harzing, A.W. 2017. Language in international business: A review and agenda for future research. Management International Review, 57(6): 815–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietze, S., Tansley, C., & Helienek, E. 2017. The translator as agent in management knowledge transfer. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 17(1): 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venuti, L. 1992. Rethinking translation: Discourse, subjectivity, ideology. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. 1998. Strategies of translation. In Baker, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of translation studies. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4): 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. 2008. The importance of language in international knowledge transfer. Management International Review, 48(3): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westney, D. E., & Piekkari, R. 2019. Reversing the translation flow: Moving organizational practices from Japan to the US. Journal of Management Studies, 57(1): 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Womack, J. P. 2013. Gemba walks. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. 1990. The machine that changed the world: Based on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million-dollar 5-year study on the future of the automobile. New York: Rawson Associates.Google Scholar