Adaptation of supply management towards a hybrid culture: the case of a Japanese automaker

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to identify problems caused by cultural differences between Japan and China that face supply chain managers by applying Japanese-style supply management practices within supply networks in China and present solutions to this problem. Design/methodology/approach – A single, longitudinal case study conducting two waves of data collection (i.e. interviews and observation) plus the collection of much archival data was performed. It goes beyond the dyad by examining supply management of a Japanese company’s supply chain up to three tiers in China. Findings – The four supply cultural differences between Japan and China, which caused the cultural clashes between JVCo and some of its suppliers were revealed and a model of adaptation of Japanese supply management to the Chinese business system was developed. Adaptation involves creating new supply management practices out of selective adaptation, innovation and change of existing Japanese and Chinese supply management practices rooted in different Japanese, Chinese and Western cultures. A list of organisational factors affecting the adaptation has also been provided. Research limitations/implications – Due to the adoption of a single case study method, caution should be given to generalising the findings to all Japanese firms. Practical implications – The Japanese, Chinese and Western managers were provided with insights on how to mitigate the problems caused by cultural differences within supply relationships in China and some innovative ideas on how managers from all three cultures could blend the elements of the three cultures to form a hybrid culture and reduce cultural clashes. Originality/value – This is one of the few attempts to study the transfer of Japanese supply management practice to China. Organizational theory (i.e. transfer of organizational practice and hybridization) is applied and provides a robust framework to explain the supply management practice. This study also answers the call for a global supplier relationship management paradigm.

Ambiguity and its coping mechanisms in supply chains lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and natural disasters

“…Each concept is defined, the studies' context explained and any important facet of the treatment of ambiguity noted (see Table 1). The OM literature has treated ambiguity as performance ambiguity (Boloori et al, 2020;Cachon and Lariveiere, 2016;Gray and Handley, 2015;Wacker et al, 2016), information ambiguity (Peng et al, 2008), causal ambiguity (Hunt and Davis, 2008;Lawson and Potter, 2012), extreme ambiguity (Silvestre et al, 2015), role ambiguity (Dong et al, 2016), relational/contractual ambiguity (Jia et al, 2016;Kim and Choi, 2015;Steinbach et al, 2018), and processing time ambiguity (Cheon et al, 2017).…”

The influence of supply chain quality management practices on quality performance: an empirical investigation

“…In the light of globalization, geographically scattered suppliers and greater supply chain interdependence, future studies could involve examining the cross-national/cultural differences in supply chain relationships, identifying context-and culture-dependant effects on SCQM performance, and challenging SCQM theories that are generally valid and universally applicable (see Sousa and Voss, 2001;Cao et al, 2015;Davis et al, 2014;Jia et al, 2016;Cadden et al, 2013;Uluskan, Joines and Godfrey, 2016;Wiengarten et al, 2015).…”

Dissolving the paradox: toward a Yin–Yang perspective on the power and trust antagonism in collaborative business relationships

“…differences in power) between the car maker and its suppliers (Liker and Choi, 2004), but, at the same time, it appears that there is a high level of trust between them (Dyer and Chu, 2000). Although Japanese management philosophies have been extensively studied (Botti, 1995; Freeman and Browne, 2004; Jia et al , 2016; Schaede, 2008), the way in which Japanese car makers manage their business relationships in a supply network by institutionalizing power and trust relationships in a non-antagonistic way is rarely investigated and rationalized. Hence, the purpose of this research is to challenge the conventional antagonistic view of power and trust and to gain a better understanding of the underlying philosophy enabling the management of the power and trust paradox.…”