Cross Cultural & Strategic Management: Article Information

Cross Cultural & Strategic Management
Power distance in India: Paternalism, religion and caste: some issues surrounding
the implementation of lean production techniques
Sagi Mathew, Greig Taylor,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sagi Mathew, Greig Taylor, (2018) "Power distance in India: Paternalism, religion and caste: some
issues surrounding the implementation of lean production techniques", Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2018-0035
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2018-0035
Downloaded by INSEAD At 08:50 22 November 2018 (PT)
Downloaded on: 22 November 2018, At: 08:50 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 116 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178665 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2059-5794.htm
Power distance
Power distance in India in India
Paternalism, religion and caste: some issues
surrounding the implementation of lean
production techniques
Sagi Mathew and Greig Taylor
School of Business and Management, RMIT International University, Received 27 February 2018
Revised 1 October 2018
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Accepted 29 October 2018
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how cultural differentiation can affect the successful
transplantation of lean management and production techniques from the parent country to subsidiary
countries in the developing world. In particular, the focus will be on car manufacture in India and the role of
hierarchy in Indian society, with reflection on how this seeps into workplace and power relations.
Design/methodology/approach – Lean production techniques have been hailed as revolutionising modern
manufacturing, particularly in the automotive sector. In developed world countries, car manufacturers have
made significant gains in efficiency and productivity as a result of their implementation. However, as many of
these multinational companies (MNCs) have expanded production into rapidly-developing nations to take
advantage of both their market and low-labour costs, the introduction of lean production practices have met
some resistance. This is because certain underpinning concepts and values of the lean system, such as team
work, delegation of authority and upward communication can be considered incompatible with aspects of
local culture and employees’ attitude towards work and their superiors. The analysis presented is based on a
series of semi-structured interviews with managers and workers from an India-based subsidiary of a MNC car
manufacturer and engagement with the existing literature.
Findings – It concludes that paternal relationships, religious values and group orientation in Indian society have a
significant impact on the dynamics of the workplace and result in a brand of power distance that is specific to this
national context, raising questions about the suitability of universal implementation of lean production practices.
Originality/value – “Power distance” has become a catch-all term for cultures with an orientation towards
hierarchy and status in society. However, this categorisation masks some of the factors belying the
phenomenon and intricacies relating to how it plays out in the workplace. It is simplistic to postulate that high
power distance cultures might be incompatible with management approaches that decentralise authority and
increase worker participation. Rather than rely on overgeneralisations, the analysis provided has attempted
to deconstruct the composition of power distance in the Indian context and document systematically how
features of Indian culture conflict with the principles of lean production techniques, using a case study from
an Indian subsidiary of a MNC. In particular, the study finds that religion, caste and paternalism create an
India-specific power distance that manifests itself in worker behaviour and workplace relationships.
Keywords Lean production, Power distance, Employee relations, India, Religion and caste, Chamchagiri,
Yes boss, Paternal relationship
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction and outline

The concept and practice of lean manufacturing is well-established in the automobile
industry and is also prevalent across various other sectors. The underpinning
manufacturing principles of lean are the maximisation of efficiency through integrated
automated systems and “just in time” (short lead time/low inventory) assembly techniques
(Preece and Jones, 2010). One of its key processes involves continuously trying to identify
and eliminate muda (waste) (Shinkle et al., 2004), in which over-production, excess inventory,
waiting, processing motion, conveyancing and correcting are recognised as the seven main
sources (Ohno, 1988). These elements are accompanied by a focus on “right first time”
quality assurance procedures, incorporating andon practices (authority for production staff Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management
to halt the production process if they believe there is a quality issue) and an emphasis on © Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5794
cost effectiveness and organisational productivity (Shinkle et al., 2004). Lean production has DOI 10.1108/CCSM-02-2018-0035
CCSM been hailed by advocates as “the machine that changed the world” (Womack et al., 1990),
“the world’s most powerful system” (Dennis, 2015) and “one of the most influential
paradigms in manufacturing” (Hines et al., 2004, p. 1006).
Innovative approaches to production processes are only one aspect of the lean system,
however, successful transition to lean manufacturing requires implementation of a
collection of “human side” values and practices that underpin it. These principles include
team work, communication, continuous improvement and the efficient use of human
resources (Womack et al., 1990). The concept of multifunctional teams is core to lean
practices and work groups are expected to be fully responsible for their work area and
portion of the production process (Ahlstrom, 1998; Rothstein, 2015). Indeed, Womack et al.
(1990, p. 99) termed the orientation towards team work as “the heart of lean factory”.
Expectations regarding team work are clearly reflected in performance management
practices, where career progression has meritocratic elements, usually closely linked with
collaboration and adherence to lean principles (Motwani, 2003; Oliver et al., 1994).
Another proposed underpinning value of lean is employee empowerment (McShane and
Glinow, 2010; Ramaswamy and Schiphorst, 2000; Spreitzer, 1995; Conger and Kanungo,
1988). The Toyota Way (2001) claims that employee feedback and involvement is actively
encouraged through regular Kaizen (continuous improvement) and quality circle meetings,
in which workers suggest improvements to the way that tasks are organised and executed
(Ortiz, 2006; Liker, 2004). Implementable suggestions are often rewarded with recognition
and small cash bonuses. Such practices are designed to increase workforce enfranchisement
and underpin the team-work ethic. Nevertheless, while there can be little doubt that the
Japanisation of production has improved efficiency and productivity (Turnbull, 1986),
lean has in fact been criticised as actually having a detrimental effect on worker
autonomy, participation and wellbeing through intensification of labour, centralisation of
decision-making and the “illusion” of employee empowerment (Stewart et al., 2016, 2009;
Jones et al., 2013; Richardson et al., 2010; Sharpe, 2006; Lewchuck et al., 2001).
Car manufacturers are increasingly seeking to expand into rapidly-developing
economies to take advantage of emerging markets and low-labour costs, usually
exporting organisational philosophies along with production techniques. A case in point is
India, which has attracted high levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) over the last two
decades. However, the implementation of lean production in Indian subsidiary
manufacturing operations of automobile companies has faced considerable resistance and
instances of industrial unrest, pushing the issue of assumed universal principles of
management in this industry into sharp focus. Research on the cultural challenges of
establishing foreign management practices in India has received academic attention and
findings suggest that a lack of understanding local culture, which underpin behaviour in the
exchanges between leaders and team members, have a fundamental influence on levels of
workplace resistance ( James and Jones, 2014; Mathew and Jones, 2013; Basu and Yoshida,
2012; Budhwar et al., 2009; Baruch and Budhwar, 2006; Kakar et al., 2006; Lansbury et al.,
2006; Sinha, 2004).
Despite the increasing focus on issues surrounding cross-cultural management, the
features of Indian society that act as a challenge to implementing lean production in the
country’s automobile industry have not been extensively charted. There are a range of
studies from various industries that examine elements of Indian work culture, but these tend
to be narrow by nature, focusing on outcomes rather than causes, or on one particular event
or aspect of worker behaviour. This paper will attempt to synthesise some of the disparate
theoretical strands on Indian culture in the existing literature and reflect on these utilising
case study data. A complex, multi-faceted and India-specific manifestation of “power
distance” (Hofstede, 1980) is identified in this research as one of the major obstacles in
implementing core lean concepts such as team work and empowerment, including work
process planning and decision-making. This study will provide an analysis of embedded Power distance
cultural factors to reveal the intricacies of the composition of hierarchy in India, revolving in India
around patriarchy, caste relationships and group orientation in the workplace and how
these act as a barrier to the transplantation of lean production philosophy from parent to
host country production.
The society and culture of India has evolved through a historic tension of spiritual vs
material pursuits and religious conquests by foreign powers. It is therefore unsurprising
that India followed a closed economic policy post-independence until liberalisation in the
early 1990s. The new era of liberalisation has enabled a large number of automobile
manufacturing companies to establish subsidiary operations in India. As a result, major
car manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Volkswagen,
Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Suzuki have all set up manufacturing centres there. The
question of how India’s historical and developmental traits form a peculiar brand of power
distance and the impact of this has on efficacy of modern production techniques is
therefore an important one.
2. Methodology and data collection

This research follows a case study approach, focusing principally on qualitative data
collected from interviews. The study is based on an Indian subsidiary of a leading Japanese
multinational automobile corporation, which will remain anonymous for the purposes of this
paper. The company follows a strong unitarist culture and enjoys a reputation of industrial
harmony across its worldwide subsidiaries. Its operations in India were initiated by entering
into a joint-venture agreement with a long-established Indian manufacturing company,
commencing production in 1999. The labour force initially comprised of around 1,000
workers in a single production facility, which has since expanded to 7,000 workers and two
plants. However, the development of these subsidiaries has been far from a smooth process
and there has been a fair amount of workforce unrest and industrial conflict. One of the
primary issues behind the unrest was the adaptation of an inexperienced, mostly rural local
workforce to the highly-organised and defined lean production processes. This will be the
focus of the study.
Marshall and Rossman (2016, p. 19) highlight the importance of case study as it explicitly
focuses on “context and dynamic interactions”. Case studies are a useful tool for helping to
“understand complex social phenomena”, such as the interplay between national culture and
contemporary management systems (Yin, 2009, p. 4). Field interviews were conducted by
undertaking five separate trips to the Indian plant between 2009 and 2012. In addition, data
was also collected from the Asia Pacific Headquarters of the company and an Australian
subsidiary of the firm. In total, more than 50 semi-structured interviews were conducted
across different stakeholders in both group and individual format, ranging from production
line operatives to line managers and from union officials to senior management. The variety
of stakeholders interviewed was part of a strategy to seek a range of perspectives, before
converging on our interpretations (Patton, 2002). In addition to interviews, the authors
undertook a tour of the plant and training facilities, taking extensive field notes from
observations. This was supplemented by secondary data in the form of newspaper reports,
personal blogs and magazine articles, particularly relating to episodes of industrial unrest at
the plant. Analysis of data was undertaken by careful transcription of interviews and
examination of field notes and documents. All these sources were inputted into our NVivo
research database and analysed.
Data were systematically organised (Saldana, 2009) before an interpretative approach
was followed, which resulted in emergent themes based on the analysis of the data
(Morehouse, 2011; Westerman, 2006). The themes to emerge from the data analysis were:
hierarchy, caste, paternalism, silence, compliance, ingratiation/sycophancy (Chamchagiri),
CCSM and mercy (Kripa). We followed the principles of theoretical sampling (Strauss and Corbin,
1998), collecting additional data through repeated interviews where necessary to expand
and “illuminate emerging concepts” (Glaser, 2001, p. 181). As research progressed in this
fashion, we could refine our enquiries from broader questions asked at the start of the data
collection, to focused questions. The reoccurring themes identified in the data analysis have
been used as the structure for the paper, with a sub-headed section for each featured theme.
A summary and overview of the existing literature for each theme is undertaken, before the
primary data is presented alongside an interpretation and reflection on its implications.
The paper will proceed as follows: a review of the traditional interpretations and theories
of power distance; an overview of the social and cultural features of India and an evaluation
of how these colour the perspectives of workers, based on the emergent themes from the
data collection; a case study analysis of how Indian culture impacts on the implementation
of lean management techniques in the day-to-day operations of automobile manufacture,
supported by qualitative interview data; a discussion of the implications of the findings of
this research for the FDI in the Indian car industry.
3. Power distance
The classical theory of power distance defines the concept as the degree of inequality among
members belonging to the same social system (Mulder, 1963). This definition invokes
images of a power struggle between equality and inequality in a given ecosystem, such as a
society or an organisation. Kipnis (1972) came to a similar conclusion that power distance
encompassed attempts by those in a position of power to influence the behaviour of the less
powerful through maintaining a psychological distance. Building on these early conceptions
of power relationships, Hofstede (1980) defined power distance as the acceptance of
inequality in terms of power between the powerful and less powerful members of
organisations and societies. Accordingly, he classified global society into a scale
categorising high- and low-power distance countries (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Similarly, the
GLOBE study also identified power distance as an important cultural dimension. This
defines power distance as “the degree to which members of an organisation or society
expect and agree that power should be unequally shared” (House et al., 2002, p. 5). It also
identifies the desire of high power distance cultures to have strong and powerful leaders
(House et al., 2004).
Related to notions of power distance, Schwartz’s (2004) cultural framework classifies
societies on the basis of conservatism vs intellectual autonomy. Conservatism is
characterised by the maintenance of the status quo and established social order embracing
values such as obedience, respect and tradition, while intellectual autonomy emphasises
ascription to individual freedom. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) identified
several important aspects of high power distance societies. For example, such societies tend
to have an orientation towards a family-like culture in organisations, where superiors adopt
father figure status and are expected to “care” for their dependents. As a result, workers
look upward for instructions from their leader to perform tasks, rather than work or
contribute to a team. They also proposed that the level of hierarchy and distance between
workers and supervisors can also be dependent on the features of the dominant religious
beliefs of a particular culture.
Mulder (1963) suggests that exercising power gives satisfaction and those higher up tend
to keep the less powerful at a distance. Thus, there is a clear gap or distance created between
the powerful and less powerful members of the society. Bruins and Wilke (1993) argue that
the greater this distance, the lesser the perception of threat by superiors and the lesser the
power aspirations of the subordinates. In high power distance cultures, status quo and
socially expected order are maintained when the powerful are assured of their status by the
words, deeds and actions of the less powerful, who are content with their position in the
social hierarchy (Schwartz, 2004). This is particularly prevalent in India where, along with Power distance
strong respect and inclination towards family values, there exists an unwritten rule of in India
“distance” and hierarchy in workplace interactions and relationships (Aycan, 2000).
As previously noted, lean production techniques have their origins in Japanese
automobile industry. Toyota and Nissan were the first companies to renovate scientific
management and the division of labour to encourage greater efficiency (Adler, 1995; Smitka,
1994). The success of lean in Japan and, subsequently, in subsidiary countries in the
developed world resulted in the near-universal adoption of these techniques across the
car-making industry. Japanese culture is categorised as relatively high power distance (54),
indicating that the nature, values and systems of lean are not necessarily contrary or
antagonistic to cultures where hierarchy and notions of status are prevalent (Hofstede,
2016). By extension therefore India, as a high power distance society (77), should not
inevitably be unreceptive to the philosophies which underpin lean production. Nevertheless,
the opposite has proven true. A series of high-profile industrial disputes have arisen in the
Indian subsidiaries of Suzuki, Honda and Toyota and these can be partially attributed to
resistance against imported production and management methods ( James and Jones, 2014;
Bhandari, 2010; Das and George, 2006). So, the more nuanced question here is what is it
about Indian culture and its particular brand of power distance that acts as a barrier to the
adoption of lean production techniques? In order to answer this, a close analysis of the
cultural components of Indian society is necessary.
4. Power distance in India

Hierarchy and paternalism in Indian culture
Indian culture is a mixture of its religious values and social system, with the latter based
on the fundamental premises of Hinduism, the majority religion (Quatro, 2004; Saini and
Budhwar, 2004; Sinha and Kanungo, 1997). Therefore, it is not surprising to see its culture
as an extension of, or rather rooted in, the Hindu value system (Sahay and Walsham, 1997;
Dhruvarajan, 1993). The dominant values of Hinduism are contentment, absence of desire
and stability and are therefore often in opposition to a high performance, achievement-
oriented culture common in modern management practices (Sahay and Walsham, 1997).
The overall culture of Indian society is based on these religious values rather than its
political system (Nandy, 1990) and the role of family as an institution plays a pivotal role
in maintaining and transferring these values through the generations (Kakar et al., 2006).
Venkata-Ratnam and Chandra (1996) argue that the dominant features of society are
strongly visible in Indian industry and are evident in the values that dictate workplace
relationships, which are attached to traditional beliefs, customs and practices.
The high power distance ingrained in Indian society stems from paternalistic and
family-oriented discourse, in which elders command control over the family and younger
members are dependent on them for guidance and advice (Kakar et al., 2006). With a strong
orientation to family values, hierarchical traits are a dominant feature of society, including
in the workplace. This acute verticalism apparent in family relationships is further
emboldened by the hierarchical caste system prevalent in Indian society, with brahmins, the
priestly class, on the top followed by the kshatriyas (the warriors), vysyas (the traders)
and shudras (menial workers), in descending order. Moreover, rigid compartmentalisation
and stratification enforces contentment to one’s caste status, rather than aspiring or
attempting to move up the order. As a result, it is extremely difficult for Indian workers to
suppress their religious values and social customs in the workplace and this can have an
impact on the efficacy of modern management and production techniques.
The hierarchical nature of the Indian caste system challenges the team work principle
of lean, as colleagues from different caste orientations are often reluctant to work together
(Rai, 2012). Moreover, the influence of family constructs is also evident in Indian
CCSM workplaces, where superiors are ascribed “father” or “uncle” status and subordinates in
return are viewed as “sons” and “nephews” (Becker-Ritterspach and Raaijman, 2013).
The ascription of a paternal role to supervisors is also self-assuring for subordinates,
in that they are placing their hope and career expectations on a reliable, caring and
compassionate person. Indeed, such is the paternal bond between superior and
subordinate, workers, and often their families, expect to be looked after by their boss even
outside the workplace environment (Dickson et al., 2003). Similarly, even at the collegial
level, senior colleagues are respected as elder brothers and juniors are regarded as
younger brothers. For example, Levin et al. (2015) reported that even a work group of ten
members had three hierarchical layers, dependent on their age, experience and caste. So,
status is a fundamental characteristic of Indian culture and hierarchical relationships in
the workplace. These stratifications have a negative impact on cultivating the type of
decentralised, team-based organisational culture upon which lean relies.
The paternalistic traits of Indian society catalyse behaviour of dependence and favour
inclination towards close supervision, rather than specifying a goal to workers and allowing
them autonomy in the execution of work tasks (Kunnanatt, 2007). As a result, there is a
general trend of over-reliance on superordinates for instruction, guidance and advice.

Both parties enjoy this relationship because it helps subordinates demonstrate their
allegiance and respect, while the superiors enjoy the feel of their power (Khatri, 2009).
Accordingly, high visibility of supervisors and micro-management are common in the
Indian work context. Superiors are generally reluctant to empower their subordinates as
they fear losing control and correspondingly subordinates would be uncomfortable with
accepting delegated responsibility (Ghosh, 2011). Workers are comfortable with, and in fact
value, the hierarchical organisation of the workplace and society more broadly (Baruch and
Budhwar, 2006). Varma et al. (2005) argue that employees are so dependent on their
superiors for work related matters that their degree of independent action is limited, which
has a direct influence on organisational performance.
So, some of the distinctive elements of Indian culture such as hierarchy, paternalism and
status contribute to a peculiar strain of power distance in India. These overarching aspects
manifest themselves in certain behaviours that have a deleterious impact upon the efficacy
of some of the “human side” values of lean. Micro-management and reluctance to accept
responsibility are two such outcomes. Modern management practices cannot function
independent of embedded cultural factors such as familyism, patronage, personalised
relationships and obedience to authority centralisation of power (Sinha and Kanungo, 1997).
However, there are other organisational consequences of the rigid stratification of Indian
society such as silence, compliance and ingratiation that should be examined more closely to
illuminate the nature of workplace relationships and document why certain modern
management techniques, such as lean, face resistance from workers.
Silence in Indian culture

Silence as a feature of high power distance demonstrates deference to authority and
hierarchy in order to avoid risk of antagonism, as well as to maintain “face” in the group.
Morrison and Milliken’s (2000) research suggests that a discourse of silence is fostered in
high power distance cultures by way of managers disallowing their subordinates from
asking questions or expressing their views. As a patriarchal society, silence in India is a
fundamental feature of interaction among individuals of different status. According to
Bagla (2008, p. 57) “seniority and age count more than merit, sometimes at a subconscious
level […] respect for elders sometimes inhibit open discussion”. Levin et al.’s (2015) Indian
workplace study described how the lower rank members in the hierarchy mostly keep quiet
in the meetings, with the higher ranked members doing most of the speaking. Workers
return the hierarchical expectation of superordinates with silence, as a mark of respect to
authority (Brockner et al., 2001; Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997; Kakar, 1978). In a hierarchical Power distance
social structure, subordinates are minded to maintain silence at workplace so as to avoid the in India
wrath of those above, which otherwise might invite managerial harassment, ridiculing and
imposition of extra workload (Budhwar et al., 2016; Jain, 2015; Saini and Budhwar, 2008).
Indian workers therefore often refuse to ask questions, even when they do not fully
understand instructions or tasks (Winkler et al., 2008).
Van-Dyne et al. (2003) identified three different forms of silence: acquiescent (withholding
information/disengaged), defensive (counterproductive work behaviour) and prosocial
(concern for others), in relation to power distance. Silence can be considered detrimental to
organisational processes as it affects productive outcomes (Rhee et al., 2014). For example,
silence is said to be counterproductive to organisational change (Morrison and Milliken,
2000) and is considered an impediment to innovation (Beer and Eisenstat, 2000), which is all
the more problematic in the lean system as it relies on employees analysing their portion of
the labour process, to suggest changes under the guise of “continuous improvement”. The
impact of silence could also hinder open communication affecting team work ( Jimenez et al.,
2017) and the overall dynamics of high performance work systems such as lean production,
particularly important in the context of cross-cultural management at foreign subsidiaries of

multinational companies (MNCs).
Compliance in Indian culture

Compliance is closely associated with silence in hierarchical societies, whereby subordinates
demonstrate non-resistant acquiescence and obey instructions without question (Kirkman
et al., 2009). Daniels and Greguras (2014) framed compliance as cultural norms suppressing
emotions, attitudes and behaviours. Indian workers often display compliance, but in a form
peculiar to its culture. An all-pervasive “yes boss” attitude amongst workers is a
distinguishing feature of Indian workplaces. Accordingly, subordinates are very reluctant to
say “no” to their superordinates (Sinha, 2014), even if instructions are not understood or a
difficult or impossible task is allocated (Budhwar et al., 2016). This could be explained in two
ways: from the subordinates’ point of view, it helps to secure care and favour from the
superiors as they do not encourage asking questions, let alone countenance refusals; from
the superordinate’s point of view, it helps to feed on the ego generated from high power
distance. This hierarchical dominance is accepted as a societal norm based on the
deep-rooted belief in paternalistic principles, demonstrating a nurturant relationship
between superior and worker (Rawat and Lyndon, 2016).
Another characteristic feature of the “yes boss” culture in the Indian context is that a
“yes” is more a respectful articulation of compliance and not always an affirmation.
Sometimes it may even mean no. For example, Sinha (2004) defines the “yes boss” culture as
a form of compliance to avoid displeasing superiors, rather than full agreement. This culture
of “yes boss” is identified as a “face-saving” mechanism to avoid the risk of being cornered
or victimised (Bagla, 2008). This Indian variety of obedience inclines workers more towards
a reactive nature, thus justifying micro-management (Buelens and Devos, 2004). However,
such submissive behaviour, while desirable for Indian supervisors, can cause conflict in the
subsidiaries of MNCs where some managers come from the parent country and are
unfamiliar with local cultural nuances, as shall be explored in due course.
Egalitarianism, ingratiation and sycophancy in Indian culture

Patriarchy, status and the caste system encourage hierarchical divisions in Indian society,
creating some peculiar features of workplace relations. Javidan et al. (2006) and Hofstede
(2001) argue that superiors are expected to be authoritative and physically (but not
emotionally) distant. Sinha (2014) justifies this contradiction in terms of the dynamics of
contributory and mutually beneficial balancing act. Just as superiors prefer distance
CCSM between themselves and workers, so workers anticipate and value the same. They do not
aspire to receive more responsibility or crave a more egalitarian approach from their
supervisors. For example, if managers appear “soft” or approachable, subordinates would
perceive this as weakness and view them with suspicion. Newman and Nollen (1996)
proposed that creating or practicing low power distance in an opposite culture frames such
managers as weak and incompetent.
Gestures of egalitarianism between stratums often leave a negative impression on Indian
workers. Sinha’s (2004) study of an Indo-Japanese firm situated in northern India cites an
instance of how the employees of the joint-venture disapproved when they saw their
Japanese superiors wearing the same uniform, standing in the same queue for food in the
canteen and participating in the morning exercise with them. So, there is a symbiotic
attachment to distance and a mutual rejection of displays of egalitarianism in workplace
relationships in India. Of course, these features conflict with the team orientation and
meritocratic character of the “human side” of lean and often cause disquiet amongst
managers and workers when introduced.
As previously outlined, workers generally over-depend on superiors for instruction,
guidance and pastoral care in Indian workplaces. The patriarchal relationship also
encourages workers to attempt to ingratiate themselves to their superiors wherever
possible. Contrary to egalitarianism, Indian workers are inclined towards seeking the kripa
(mercy) of their boss, as ingratiation often prevails over individual performance in
workplace interactions (Sinha, 2004). Superiors enjoy the feel of power that ingratiation
brings, so sycophancy and favouritism tend to be features of the Indian workplace (Khatri,
2009). The concept of chamcha has been identified in research of Indian workplaces
(Srivastava and Kulkarni, 2009; Gupta and Sharma, 2003). The term literally means “spoon”
and is used colloquially to identify a person who employs sycophancy (chamchagiri) to
establish a personal relationship with superordinates. Sen (2009, p. 131) defines a chamcha
as “someone who is sly and always on the lookout to score points over his co-workers […]
by misreporting about work etc”. The chamchas of a workplace have curried the favour or
trust of a supervisor, either through ingratiation or a pre-existing relationship and, by
extension, enjoy their patronage and some authority through tacit delegation.
Chamchagiri could be understood as a personalised relationship that overrides formal
rules and settings and is ubiquitous as a key variable in organisational politics in Indian
institutional discourse (Srivastava and Kulkarni, 2009). This is a mutually-beneficial
arrangement whereby the manager has his “political antenna” maintained with a flow of
information from his loyalists and the chamchas in turn enjoy special privileges, direct
access to authority and rewards for their service not prescribed in the job description
(Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997). As long as this balance is not breached,
subordinates are intrinsically motivated towards work and moreover develop an attitudinal
commitment towards the organisation, although the practice of ingratiation and
sycophancy can also cause competition and conflict amongst employees (Mowday et al.,
2013). Effectively, the chamchas of the workplace act as an intermediate stratum in the
power relationships of Indian workplaces and this has implications for the application of
some of the practices of lean, as will be discussed in the case study.
5. Findings and data sharing

The unique and complex nature of Indian values and society has been outlined in some
detail. In the workplace, these underpinning elements, such as primacy of caste and elder
hierarchy, result in certain attitudes to develop towards supervisors and colleagues
manifested in ingratiation, kripa, “yes-boss” and silence orientations amongst Indian
workers. In addition, religion, patriarchy, deference to status and in-group orientation have
a significant impact on the efficacy of production practices and management approaches
that seek to foster decentralisation through empowerment, delegation and responsibility, Power distance
such as lean. Using data collected from a series of interviews at the Indian plant of a in India
Japanese MNC, this case study will explore how various aspects of India’s culture impact
upon the efficacy of lean management principles in practice, while emphasising the hitherto
under-examined role that intermediaries play relationships in an Indian factory setting.
The overarching theme that emerged from our analysis was conceptualised as a form of
power distance. Doubtlessly hierarchy and power gap are ubiquitous in Indian society, and by
extension the workplace, but there are some features stemming from the country’s historical
political and cultural development that are unique to that context and hence result in a
peculiar manifestation of power relations, a power distance that is India-specific (Dhanesh and
Sriramesh, 2017). Over one hundred codes emerged out of the data analysis of which paternal
relationships, hierarchy, caste differences, chamchagiri (sycophancy), “yes boss” attitude,
kripa (mercy) and managerial expectations of deference and submission were identified as
constantly reoccurring themes. The contribution of the case study research presented below is
to categorise and highlight these features of Indian power distance and demonstrate how they
act as obstacles to the implementation of lean management techniques.
Paternalism and “yes boss”

As discussed previously, one element of hierarchy in Indian society is derived from family
group and elder respect. In the workplace, this manifests itself through a paternalistic
relationship between superiors and subordinates. Managers are reluctant to devolve any
responsibility to their workers and are oriented towards micro-management. When asked
about allowing workers autonomy in certain tasks or duties, one supervisor responded:
“I cannot leave it to them, they are just kids […] they commit mistakes. If they can do
everything, why am I here?” The paternal relationship common in certain high power
distance cultures is demonstrated in the workers being described as “kids”. A senior
manager explicitly stated this categorisation in interview, commenting “I am like a father
figure for them. They consider me as their own father and seek advice and help even with
personal matters […] I also treat them as my children, this is our culture”. Another
interviewee replied, “yes you are right […] actually they are kids, they do not know the
value of time […] we work on a tight schedule”. A lack of confidence towards subordinates
can be attributed to due to the paternal nature of Indian society. Even away from the
employer-employee relationship, the same pseudo-family hierarchies were prevalent. For
example, in a group interview with union members, one of the seniors ordered a junior
member to make tea for everybody, to which he answered yes, anna (older brother). Whilst
the younger or less experienced members referred to seniors as “older brother”, so the
seniors addressed the juniors as chottu, meaning “little one” or “younger brother”.
The “yes boss” attitude among workers is an extension of top-down paternalistic
workplace relationships and was extremely visible during field research. In an interview
with a middle manager that took place on the shop floor, it was possible to observe a classic
example. The manager barked out orders at his subordinates as he was interviewed, to
which they responded with a simple “yes, sir”. There were no questions asked by workers in
terms of clarification, nor opinions offered or sought. When the manager was asked about
his management style, he replied:
It has become a historical culture descended from the time of gurukul [ancient Indian schooling
system], that the guru [teacher] does all the talk and the disciples just agree and listen carefully,
recording everything to their memory. Later, the disciples are asked to recite what was taught and
the disciple who regurgitated the best is considered as the favourite of all the disciples.
So, following orders fastidiously and without discussion is regarded both as a means of
respecting the ranks and currying favour with superiors. The “yes boss” paternalism of
CCSM Indian workplace relations has a profound effect over the efficacy of lean. The lean
philosophy is orientated around workers taking responsibility for continuous improvement
and quality control. Kaisen and worker involvement are regarded as key to employee
motivation (Dennis, 2015; Womack et al., 1990). However, in a culture that discourages
employees from querying superiors or seeking clarification such as India’s, this very
fundamental aspect of the lean system is undermined.
While Indian workers are well-accustomed to the dominance of their superiors, this
aspect of local culture was the cause of significant antagonism and conflict between locals
and Japanese managers at the subsidiary. For example, one Japanese supervisor in charge of
training complained, “I hate them […] they say ‘yes sir’ in agreement to the instructions and
go back to commit mistakes”. This was referred to a long-serving Indian manager of the
company, to which he responded: “Yes, we had a lot of such problems initially […] they [the
Japanese managers] did not understand Indian culture. In our culture subordinates would
not say no to their superiors as it may be considered as disrespect”. Although Japan and
India are both regarded as high power distance cultures, it is clear that the submissive and
paternal orientation among Indian workers and managers is context-specific and can be
regarded as an additional barrier to the effective implementation of the employee

involvement aspects of the lean system.
Silence and deference

Closely associated with a “yes boss” attitude, silence is another defining feature of Indian
culture and workplace relationships more broadly. Workers seldom offer their opinion in
any situation for fear that it might contradict that of one of their superiors and that they
might be victimised against as a result. This was clearly demonstrated when individual
union members were approached with specific questions about their experiences working
on the shop floor, to which the stock response was “please, speak to our (union) leaders”.
When we emphasised that we were interested in their personal experience, a typical answer
was “my experience also, my leader will tell you”. In order to encourage employees to share
their experiences, the interviewer approached union leaders and it was only following their
approval that lower level members would consent to be interviewed.
The above attitude of deference was observed in team meetings as well. Quality Circle or
Kaizen meetings are central to the lean dogma, where team members meet regularly to analyse
work processes and discuss improvements. However, observation of such meetings
demonstrated the pervasive nature of power distance through deferent silence. In one
meeting, the team leader dominated a largely one-way discussion, while the members maintained
silence throughout except for an occasional “yes” and nodding of heads in agreement. Nodding
of the head (in approval) rather than verbal articulation is a common feature of Indian deference.
The leader dictated how particular tasks should be carried out, with little consultation. When a
team member did query a minor possible issue in a work process, the team leader shouted at the
subordinate “who is the boss here, you or me?”, the subordinate responded “you are, sir” to which
the leader retorted “then shut up and go and do what I said […] do not try to teach me”.
This scenario is the antithesis of how the Kaisen system should work, where the team
leader should act as a facilitator, rather than dictate the process. When the encounter was
raised with an Indian senior manager of the plant he acknowledged the problems this posed
to effective employee involvement and motivation, “yeah, I know […] it’s our culture, you
know? It will take a long time to change”. A production operative articulated this feature of
Indian culture adroitly during interview, commenting that:
I do have many questions, because you know this is a new system […] but our culture prohibits us
from asking too many questions. There are two reasons, either the boss will get annoyed because
he thinks that I am unnecessarily trying to test his knowledge, or he may think that I am a slow
learner, difficult to understand things easily and so on. It will then create problems for me because I Power distance
will become a target of my boss. I don’t want it […] better keep quiet and follow the orders. in India
Indian managers’ frequently conveyed reluctance to implement employee involvement,
despite the centrality of this to the lean ethos. One commented:
We work on tight schedules […] they may have a dozen questions, but where is the time for such
long question answer sessions? We have to meet “takt” time […] if production gets delayed I have
to answer to my bosses. To an extent I can answer their questions, but under pressure sometimes
I also get annoyed. Then I tell them, shut up and do what I said […] so yes you are right, sometimes
the entire lean production processes cannot be implemented in its essential form.
In fact, contrary to this manager’s statement, quality is considered more important than
production volume (Dennis, 2015) and again this demonstrates how entrenched attitudes
amongst operatives and managers damage the essence of the lean system. A prescient
example of this is in the andon process. Under andon, employees are trained and encouraged
to take responsibility for quality by unilaterally halting the production line if they find an
issue. Clearly, in the Indian context, where production operatives are afraid to ask questions,
challenge authority or act autonomously for fear of reprisals, this very important aspect of
the “lean machine” is undermined.
In another interview comprising two union leaders and five members from the shop floor,
silent deference was acutely apparent. Throughout the interview only the leaders spoke, while
the members kept silent. Even questions asked to individual members were answered by the
leaders. However, there was no power struggle or feel of offence or frustration visible from the
team members. Again, there were frequent nods to the leaders’ statements. This phenomenon
was not confined to the shop floor. Hierarchy is just as palpable further up the chain. During
an interview with an Indian senior manager and his deputy, the senior manager spoke for
most of the time. On the rare occasions that the deputy did speak, the senior manager either
silenced or openly corrected him. Once this had happened, the deputy manager kept silent for
the rest of the interview. The deputy manager did not show offence, however, instead
following the “yes boss” mantra, either vocally or by affirmative nods.
Differences between Indian and Japanese culture also caused issues in this case. For example,
Japanese managers at the plant were unable to comprehend the silence of Indian workers. There
was an instance in which an employee committed a mistake on the shop floor. A Japanese
manager arrived at the scene and started criticising the employee. The employee in question
stood in silence with his head hanging down, but this offended the Japanese manager. Clearly
angered, he grabbed the cap of the worker, threw it on the floor and started stamping on it with
his feet, shouting “don’t you have anything to say?” The reason for this silent, deferential
behaviour is closely associated with paternalism. An Indian production supervisor reflected:
“I explain these concepts using the examples of family relationships […] for instance if your
father asked you to do something or your mother scolds you for a mistake […] how would you
take it? Won’t you silently accept it? You wouldn’t argue with your parents, would you?” So, this
almost child-like response to chastisement can be viewed as a logical extension of the Hinduism-
inspired paternalism of Indian society. Therefore, we can discern that lean production and its
underpinning tenets of continuous improvement, team work and shared responsibility for
quality are all potentially damaged by silence, “yes boss” and deference.
Chamchagiri (Sycophancy)
Chamchagiri is a common dynamic of workplace relationships in India (Srivastava and
Kulkarni, 2009; Sen, 2009; Gupta and Sharma, 2003). However, issues surrounding favouritism
and sycophancy were particularly acute at this joint-venture. The Indian side of the venture
was headquartered in a different region from that where the manufacturing plant was located.
When it came to recruitment, some workers came from the headquarter region and others
CCSM were recruited from the surrounding rural areas of the plant. This complicated workplace
relations because it created regional rivalry and divisions. Some of the members who were
recruited from the joint-venture partner’s hometown were immediately branded as chamchas
(sycophants) by the local workers and viewed with suspicion. One local worker alleged “as
they are chamchas of management, we are cautious […] if we say something it will reach the
ears of the management”. Others were more scathing in their assessment: “we have no
freedom […] they are colonising even our private space and time by planting chamchas in our
teams”. The situation deteriorated when some of these perceived chamchas were promoted as
team leaders. As well as being from another region, several were also considered inferior in the
caste hierarchy and this was the cause of considerable unrest.
Aside from regional rivalries, the meritocracy of sorts that lean subscribes to can clash
with the value attached to age. A similar scenario also emerges associated with work
experience. As team leaders can be appointed on merit of performance, there were instances
when junior members, either by age or date of appointment, were promoted as team leaders.
A disgruntled worker plainly stated, “he just came yesterday [a relatively recent recruit] and
today he is a team leader. We are seniors and much more experienced. How could this
happen unless one is a chamcha […] we don’t like chamchagiri”. An industrial journalist
who studied instances of industrial unrest in the plant highlighted the meritocratic nature of
lean as a major issue in the Indian context:
You know our society cannot accept such practices. Seniority is still a deciding factor in promotions
in India. When they introduced this concept and moreover when outsiders were promoted, this
created unrest […] the blame game of chamchagiri started immediately and the company
objectives, what they call lean practices, could not be established.
Any promotion that impinges upon perceived hierarchical protocols, particularly where
regional or experiential rivalry is concerned, is blamed on chamchagiri and this in turn has
an obvious, negative impact on team spirit and cohesion.
The chamchas of the workplace add an intermediate stratum to workplace power relations
and this has further deleterious effects on the human side principles of lean. One example lies
in the Kaizen process. Through Quality Circle meetings, workers are invited to discuss
potential improvements to the work process, work areas, scheduling, material/parts supply
etc., with those responsible for making implementable suggestions often rewarded. However,
because the chamchas have the ear of their supervisors, the continuous improvement process
is open to manipulation. A worker described this issue:
As part of kaizen we make suggestions, but these chamchas will go and present to the managers as
their idea. Thus they get the rewards. We cannot complain, because they are chamchas and enjoy
favour from the superiors. If we complain, then these guys will give us more trouble by making
false allegations against us.
When questioned about this specific concern, a middle manager simply responded,
“chamchagiri is a strong culture in our society, it is there in politics and everywhere […] We
try to maintain a strictly objective approach to work. But, sometimes there may be
something missing. After all, you cannot change everything overnight, it will take time”.
Chamcharigi permeates all Indian workplaces and all aspects of workplace
relationships. However, it is particularly damaging for the lean system, which places
emphasis on perceptions of employee empowerment and team-based work groups. Just as
workers expect the care of their supervisors to transcend work/home boundaries, so do the
actions of the chamchas. A senior trade union leader explained the centrality of
chamcharigi to Indian culture:
It is our culture that subordinates try to impress their superiors by establishing a personal relationship.
Sometime they fetch water or tea or coffee for their seniors or buy paan [a combination of ingredients
wrapped in betel leaves, which is chewed]. Even outside, they do menial support such as cleaning the Power distance
motor bike or car of their superiors, or even buy vegetables for them […] so many ways. It is a in India
collective society and though it is chamchagiri, more than that it is like building a good relationship.
Kripa (Mercy)
Directly associated with paternalistic relationships in the workplace and religiosity in
broader society is the idea that managers should “care” for their employees. Just as
managers are ascribed fatherly status, so junior members of the workforce are perceived as
children and should be nurtured accordingly. Workers therefore often seek the kripa (mercy)
of their superiors if they face difficulty or have committed a mistake. A senior manager
described this cultural trait succinctly:
It is an Indian religious tradition. In this situation, we can call it “guru kripa” [mercy of the teacher/
leader]. People have weaknesses, difficulties, hardships and so they look up for kripa. It is a
religious and social responsibility in Indian culture to show kripa so as to be freed from karma cycle
[…] so it is quite natural that you witness that in the workplace too.
However, in a performance and efficiency-driven system such as lean, kripa is often

incompatible. Lean demands that workers are empowered and take responsibility for
their work and responsibility within their team. If they fail to participate or perform,
they could be subject to disciplinary action. The lack of mercy that Japanese management
demonstrated in such situations was the cause of significant discontent among
Indian workers. During interviews, several workers expressed anxiety with this,
one commenting:
I don’t understand […] the lean practices talk about trust, empowerment, team work […] which means
taking care of employees […] but we don’t even get kripa from them, forget about our rights. We
demanded our rights and this is what we get [suspensions and dismissals]. Then at least they should
show some mercy. It is kripa that holds our relationships […] I think they don’t understand that.
In addition to contrasting management approaches between Japanese and Indian
supervisors, demonstrated by misunderstanding of employee deference and the
importance of mercy, the regimented nature of Just-in-Time manufacturing also
conflicted with the outlook of workers from this rural area of India. Rotating early/late
eight hour shifts were implemented at this plant, with overtime often arbitrarily applied
because of the fluctuating demand for vehicles in the Indian market. Consternation with
the highly-defined nature of modern manufacture is described by a shop floor worker here:
“Kripa is not in their [Japanese management’s] dictionary. We had to work continuously
through from one shift to another shift. No breaks in between […] even our toilet sessions
are recorded […] we had to swipe cards to go to toilet”. What is clear is that there are
divergent attitudes towards work and expected worker behaviour between the two
cultures and that this influences Indian employees’ perception of the lean system. A union
leader criticised the uncompromising attitude of the company towards these
inexperienced, and often young, employees: “it is a new system of production and they
try to impose all these so called fancy things […] muda, JIT, genchi gembutsu. They need
to know that these are eighteen and nineteen-year-old boys from villages […] pushing
everything at one go doesn’t work […] they need to have patience, show some kripa”. This
also intersects with the paternalist orientation of India, where young adults are still
considered children, incapable of acting responsibly:
Of course, kripa is a nice thing […] but the problem is these young boys are very careless. They
take everything for granted. They go to their villages on the pretext of wedding in the family or to
help their parents with harvest […] they go on a leave of seven days only to return three weeks
later. Then they seek kripa […] because they know that we care for them.
CCSM 6. Discussion
“Power distance” has become a catch-all term for cultures with an orientation towards
hierarchy and status in society. However, this categorisation masks some of the factors
belying the phenomenon and intricacies relating to how it plays out in the workplace. It is
simplistic to postulate that high power distance cultures might be incompatible with
management approaches that decentralise authority and increase worker participation.
For example, why is Japan, with a medium high power distance score and a cultural
penchant for hierarchy and status, the birthplace of lean production while the workforces of
other predominantly hierarchical societies, such as India, have struggled to adapt to
evolutions in management techniques? This paper has sought to disentangle some of the
peculiarities relating to Indian culture and demonstrate how these act as a barrier to the
successful implementation of lean at a joint-venture car manufacturing subsidiary.
The account of general worker discontent that emerges from the case study interview data
highlights the difficulties faced. However, rather than rely on overgeneralisations, the
analysis provided has attempted to deconstruct the composition of power distance in
the Indian context and document systematically how features of its culture conflict with the
principles of lean production techniques. It has attempted to bring together some of

the elements of Indian culture identified disparately in other academic studies to
demonstrate how these might interact to influence organisational discourse and
relationships in MNC manufacturing firms operating in India.
The unique hierarchical structures and tendencies in Indian society are derived from its
historical religious and cultural development. The centrality of religion in Indian society is
one reason for worker, and indeed managerial, animosity towards the “human side”
principles of lean. In Japan, around half the population are non-practicing or not affiliated to
any type of religion while in India, this figure is just 0.8 per cent, with 80 per cent of the
population practicing Hindus (source: Census of India, 2001; NHK Culture Research
Institute, 2008). Moreover, the Hindu caste system inspired by this religiosity is unique to
India and all-pervasive in society, meaning its influence is also keenly felt in the workplace.
Fundamentally, the caste system acts as a barrier to the implementation of lean by
undermining its autonomous and quasi-egalitarian elements. Unquestioning deference to
those above, both in terms of seniority and caste, creates a heavily paternal relationship
between superiors and subordinates. This combines with the more traditional “yes boss”
and silence traits of high power distance societies to create an environment that is often
inhospitable to team-based manufacturing techniques.
Decentralisation and delegation are the most incompatible features of lean in the Indian
context. Rigid stratification in society means that Indian workers are simply not accustomed
accepting responsibility or acting autonomously. Similarly, many Indian managers are not
comfortable with delegating responsibility to the “kids” and believe them to be neither
willing, nor able, to receive it. They also crave the feel of authority and power that their
paternal role, and the servility of their underlings, gives them. These fundamental
characteristics of power relations in the Indian workplace clash with the more egalitarian
features of lean.
An interesting perspective on empowerment emerged from the data collected for this
case study. Since broad-ranging empowerment of employees is incompatible with Indian
culture, the status and role of intermediaries instead assume greater importance. The
chamchas (sycophants) of a workplace enjoy the patronage of supervisors and some
empowerment through tacit delegation of authority. The concept of chamchagiri
(sycophancy) is only partially developed in the literature on Indian workplace relations.
For example, Becker-Ritterspach and Raaijman’s (2013) research on Mercedes-Benz in India,
when identifying the patriarchal employment relationship, highlighted the role of a deputy
or “elder son”, who acts as a lieutenant for a supervisor. Nevertheless, having identified the
“elder sons”, their analysis of the role these play in the workplace relationship was Power distance
somewhat brief and cursory. Instead, this study emphasises the central significance of in India
chamchagiri in the dynamics of organisational discourse and relationships in Indian
workplaces and, in particular, the effect this has on the successful implementation of lean.
A chamcha works as an agent to disseminate communication between superiors and
subordinates thereby creating an additional layer of hierarchy, contributing to power
distance. In return, these “elder sons” expect protection and preferential treatment from their
superior and favouritism in formal performance measurement mechanisms and outcomes. In
fact, several studies on India suggest bias in performance appraisal practices due to personal
affiliations, connections and relationships in Indian organisations (Amba-Rao et al., 2000;
Mendonca and Kanungo, 1996; Shenker, 1995; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). This intermediate
and tacit stratum of workplace hierarchy undermines the fostering of team-work culture,
weakens performance-based meritocracy and causes resentment and suspicion amongst
employees, clearly incompatible with many of the principles that underpin lean and make it
successful in other countries and cultures. Leader-Member Exchange theory states that an
inner circle in an organisation gains trust and thereby favours in the form of preferential
treatment (Laufer et al., 2018; Gomez and Rosen, 2001; Green and Liden, 1980). In the Indian
context, this inner circle is usually made up of chamchas.
Aside from the broad cultural incongruities relating to delegation of responsibility,
employee empowerment and ingratiation, there are specific integral elements of the lean
philosophy that clash with Indian cultural sensibilities. For example, the practice of kaisen
endeavours to involve team members to contribute to efficiency in production practices and
outcomes. This requires every employee, irrespective of status and position, to openly
express views, make suggestions and ask questions. However, this is emasculated by
one-way communication norms and the “yes boss” and silence orientations of Indian
workers. Another specific example of how fundamental tenets of the lean philosophy clash
with Indian cultural values lie in the concepts of muda and andon. So central to the lean
system, these initiatives encourage all employees on the shop floor to stop the production
line at any time if a suspected fault is identified. Babson’s (1995) study on lean production
system determined that, even in low power distance cultures, assembly line workers who
activate the andon system to halt production often have to face the wrath of supervisors.
In India, where lower level production workers are regularly treated as children, this is even
more acute. Employees are frightened to stop production, wary of being labelled as a trouble
causer and this severely undermines the lean emphasis on quality, “right first time” and
minimisation of muda.
The emphasis on muda and the elimination of waste causes other issues when applied in
the Indian context. As well as supposedly being responsible for waste in the production
process, the lean system requires team members to be fully responsible for their area of
work. This involves cleaning designated work areas and organising tools and materials
systematically. However, societal status restricts higher caste workers from doing such
menial jobs as it equalises their status with lower orders and is hence perceived an affront to
social rank. The team-oriented and egalitarian approach to work areas and tasks that lean
depends on clashes with perceptions of caste status in Indian context.
In addition to the influence of status, deference and chamchagiri, other aspects of Indian
culture are an anathema to the principles of lean. Lean’s orientation towards meritocracy is
aimed at encouraging high performance amongst individuals and teams through
recognition, reward and career advancement. The best performing individuals can be
promoted to team leaders, regardless of their tenure in the company. However, in the Indian
context, this is met with resistance, especially when the achiever is from a lower caste.
Perceptions of seniority, age and experience engendered in paternalist orientation also
contributed to the discomfiture surrounding performance-based promotion. For example,
CCSM one worker commented that “team leaders are sometimes younger than team members. In
our culture age is highly regarded and respected”.
One of the major contributions of this paper is to emphasise the cultural challenges that
MNC car manufacturers face when attempting to import lean manufacturing techniques into
their Indian subsidiaries or when embarking upon joint ventures in the country. To
summarise in diagram form, organisational discourse in Indian workplaces consists of
various factors that constitute a unique manifestation of power distance. This has an impact
upon work culture and workplace relationships and is particularly detrimental to specific
elements of the “human side” lean philosophy, such as kaisen, muda and andon (Figure 1).
The acute stratification of Indian society poses myriad questions for MNCs seeking to
manufacture their product in this rapidly modernising and expanding economy. Traditions
of patriarchy, religion, caste divisions, seniority and group orientation lend themselves to
workplace power and hierarchical structures that act as an analgesic to the decentralised,
team-based model that is an integral part of lean’s success. This has significant implications
for both the Indian economy and future FDI in the country’s rapidly-developing car
manufacturing industry.
Limitations and future research

The principal limitation of this paper is that the analysis is drawn from a single case study.
Further research is needed to investigate the cultural barriers to the implementation of lean
manufacturing across other foreign subsidiaries operating in the Indian automobile
industry. Moreover, culture is an ever-evolving phenomenon and globalisation trends have
accelerated momentum. Since India’s economic modernisation started only a couple of
decades ago, further research is needed to measure deviance from baseline cultural facets,
particularly after interaction with modern management practices (Meyer, 2014).
It is claimed that Indian workplace culture has evolved considerably since the arrival of
modern HRM strategies imported by foreign multinationals. For instance, Som (2006) cites
the case of Suzuki in India where the modern systems were “successfully” implemented.
However, violent unrest in the company in the recent past (D’Costa, 2016) identifies cultural
conflict with the lean system as the crux of industrial strife (Harzing and Pinnington, 2014).
Therefore, this area of research might benefit from more longitudinal studies to identify the
strength of various cultural factors in withstanding or adapting to modern management
practices. Interestingly, Capelli et al. (2010) highlight a paradigm shift in the mind set of
Indian leaders, with a growing realisation of the importance of investing in people
development (Budhwar et al., 2017). This could be used as a platform to develop training
YE
E
S
NC
P ANCE
BO
IST
HI
SILE
SS
LATIONS
POWER D
POWER
ORGANISATIONAL
DISCOURSE
RE
DI
AL
STANCE
N
ER
PAT
Figure 1. CH
Indian Power AM
CHAGIRI
Distance Factors
strategies incorporating cultural factors and hints towards slowly-changing attitudes Power distance
amongst Indian managers. in India
As other economies, such as those elsewhere in Asia and South America, continue to
modernise and expand, so MNCs will seek to outsource or relocate production to these new
markets. More detailed research is also required on how elements of each culture’s unique
historical, religious and political development might conflict with contemporary
management and production techniques in order to pre-empt issues and assist in future
planning for organisations. Nevertheless, in the specific case of car manufacture in India, it
is hoped that this study will help inform the practice of various stakeholders, from senior
executives to managers and government economic strategists to HR professionals, allowing
for a better understanding of how the complex nature of national culture can conflict with
certain elements of modern management methods, such as lean.
References
Adler, P.S. (1995), “Democratic taylorism: the Toyota production system at NUMMI”, in Babson, S.
(Ed.), Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry, Wayne State
University Press, Detroit, MI, pp. 207-219.
Ahlstrom, P. (1998), “Sequences in the implementation of lean production”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-334.
Amba-Rao, S.C., Petrick, J.A., Gupta, J.N.D. and Embse, T.J.V. (2000), “Comparative performance
appraisal practices and management values among foreign and domestic firms in India”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-89.
Aycan, Z. (2000), “Cross-cultural industrial and organisational psychology: contributions, past
developments, and future directions”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 110-128.
Babson, S. (1995), “Lean production and labour: empowerment and exploitation”, in Bason, S. (Ed.),
Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the Global Auto Industry, Wayne State University
Press, Detroit, pp. 1-40.
Bagla, G. (2008), Doing Business in 21st-Century India: How to Profit Today in Tomorrow’s Most
Exciting Market, Grand Central Publishing, New York, NY.
Baruch, Y. and Budhwar, P.S. (2006), “A comparative study of career practices for management staff in
Britain and India”, International Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 84-101.
Basu, S. and Yoshida, R. (2012), “How to overcome the cultural divide? A study of Japanese expatriates’
work experiences in India”, South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 115-133.
Becker-Ritterspach, F. and Raaijman, T. (2013), “Global transfer and Indian management: a historical
hybridity perspective”, Management International Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 141-166.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R.A. (2000), “The silent killers of strategy implementation and learning”, Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 29-40.
Bhandari, N.C. (2010), “Walmart is coming to India: the case”, Journal of the International Academy of
Case Studies, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 79-90.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M.J., Francesco, A.M., Chen, Z.X., Leung, K.,
Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C. and Kirkman, B.L. (2001), “Culture and procedural justice: the influence
of power distance on reactions to voice”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 300-315.
Bruins, J.J. and Wilke, H.A.M. (1993), “Upward power tendencies in a hierarchy: power distance theory
versus bureaucratic rule”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 239-254.
Budhwar, P.S., Bjorkman, I. and Singh, V. (2009), “Emerging HRM systems of foreign firms operating
in India”, in Budhwar, P.S. and Bhatnagar, J. (Eds), The Changing Face of People Management in
India, Routledge, Oxon and New York, NY, pp. 115-134.
CCSM Budhwar, P.S., Varma, A. and Patel, C. (2016), “Convergence-divergence of HRM in the Asia-Pacific:
context-specific analysis and future research agenda”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 311-326.
Budhwar, P.S., Tung, R.L., Varma, A. and Do, H. (2017), “Developments in human resource
management in MNCs from BRICS nations: a review and future research agenda”, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 111-123.
Buelens, M. and Devos, G. (2004), “Art and wisdom in choosing change strategies: a critical reflection”,
in Boonstra, J.J. (Ed.), Dynamics of Organisational Change and Learning, Wiley, Chichester,
pp. 85-96.
Capelli, P., Singh, J., Singh, J.V. and Useem, M. (2010), “Leadership lessons from India”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 90-97.
Census of India (2001), Religious Composition, available at: www.censusindia.gov.in/census_online/
population.html; http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/religion.aspx
(accessed 2 September 2016).
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988), Charismatic Leadership: The Elusive Factor in Organisational
Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
D’Costa, A.P. (2016), “Institutional change, industrial logics, and internationalisation: growth of the
auto and IT sectors in India”, in Begley, J., Coffey, D., Donnelly, T. and Thornley, T. (Eds), Global
Economic Crisis and Local Economic Development: International Cases and Policy Responses,
Routledge, London and New York, NY, pp. 95-119.
Daniels, M.A. and Greguras, G.J. (2014), “Exploring the nature of power distance: implications for
micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40
No. 5, pp. 1202-1229.
Das, K. and George, S. (2006), “Labour practices and working conditions in TNCs: the case of Toyota
Kirloskar in India”, in Chang, D. (Ed.), Globalising Asian Corporations: A Portrait of Struggle,
Asia Monitor Resource Centre, Hong Kong, pp. 273-302.
Dennis, P. (2015), Lean Production Simplified: A Plain language Guide to the World’s Powerful
Production System, CRC Press, FL.
Dhanesh, G.S. and Sriramesh, K. (2017), “Culture and crisis communication: Nestle India’s Maggi
noodles case”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 204-213, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.12.004
Dhruvarajan, V. (1993), “Ethnic cultural retention and transmission among first generation Hindu
Asian Indians in a Canadian prairie city”, Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 3-79.
Dickson, M.W., Hartog, D., Hartog, D.N. and Mitchelson, K. (2003), “Research on leadership in a cross-
cultural context: making progress, and raising new questions”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 729-768.
Ghosh, S. (2011), “Firm ownership type, earnings management and auditor relationships: evidence
from India”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 350-369.
Glaser, B. (2001), The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualisation Contrasted with Description,
Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.
Gomez, C. and Rosen, B. (2001), “The leader-member exchange as a link between managerial trust and
employee empowerment”, Group & Organisation Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Green, S.G. and Liden, R.C. (1980), “Contextual and attributional influences on control decisions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 453-458.
Gupta, N. and Sharma, A.K. (2003), “Patrifocal concerns in the lives of women in academic science:
continuity of tradition and emerging challenges”, Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 279-305.
Harzing, A. and Pinnington, A.H. (2014), International Human Resource Management, Sage, Los
Angeles and London.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking”, Power distance
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 994-1011. in India
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage, London and New Delhi.
Hofstede, G. (2016), “India in comparison with the below”, available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/india.
html (accessed 23 June 2016).
House, R.J., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. and Dorfman, P. (2002), “Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership and
Organisations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Countries, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jain, A.K. (2015), “An interpersonal perspective to study silence in Indian organisations:
investigation of dimensionality and development of measures”, Personal Review, Vol. 44
No. 6, pp. 1010-1036.
James, R. and Jones, R. (2014), “Transferring the Toyota lean cultural paradigm into India: implications
for human resource management”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 25 No. 15, pp. 2174-2191.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006), “In the eye of the beholder:
cross-cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-90.
Jimenez, A., Boehe, D.M., Taras, V. and Caprar, D.V. (2017), “Working across boundaries: current and
future perspectives on global virtual teams”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 341-349.
Jones, R., Latham, J. and Betta, M. (2013), “Creating the illusion of employee empowerment: lean
production in the international automobile industry”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1629-1645.
Kakar, S. (1978), The Inner Word: A Psycho Analytic Study of Indian Society and Childhood, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Kakar, S., Manfred, F.R., Vries, K.D. and Vrignaud, P. (2006), “Leadership in Indian organisations from
a comparative perspective”, in Davis, H.J., Chatterjee, S.R. and Huer, M. (Eds), Management in
India: Trends and Transitions, Response Books, New Delhi, pp. 105-119.
Khatri, N. (2009), “Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations”, Vision: The Journal of
Business Perspective, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kipnis, D. (1972), “Does power corrupt?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 33-41.
Kirkman, B.L., Chen, G., Farh, J.L., Chen, Z.X. and Lowe, K.B. (2009), “Individual power distance
orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural
examination”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 744-764.
Kunnanatt, J.T. (2007), “Leadership orientation of service sector managers in India: an empirical study”,
Business and Society Review, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 99-119.
Lansbury, R.D., Kwon, S.H. and Suh, C.S. (2006), “Globalisation and employment relations in the
Korean auto industry: the case of the Hyundai motor company in Korea, Canada and India”,
Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 131-147.
Laufer, D., Garrett, T.C. and Ning, B. (2018), “The moderating role of power distance on the reaction of
consumers to the CEO as a spokesperson during a product harm crisis: insights from China and
South Korea”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 215-221, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2017.12.002
Levin, S., Roccas, S., Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (2015), “Personal values and intergroup outcomes of
concern for group honor”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 374-384.
CCSM Lewchuck, W., Stewart, P. and Yates, C. (2001), “Quality of working life in the automobile industry:
a Canada-UK comparative study”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 72-87.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
McShane, S.L. and Glinow, M.A.Y.V. (2010), Organisational Behavior: Emerging Knowledge and
Practice for the Real World, McGraw-Hill, Irwin, Boston, MA.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (2016), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mathew, S.K. and Jones, R. (2013), “Toyotism and Brahminism: employee relations difficulties in
establishing lean manufacturing in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 200-221.
Mendonca, M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1996), “Impact of culture on performance management in developing
countries”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 66-75.
Meyer, E. (2014), “Navigating the cultural minefield”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 92 No. 5,
pp. 119-123.
Morehouse, R.E. (2011), Beginning Interpretive Inquiry: A Step by Step Approach to Research and
Evaluation, Routledge, London and New York, NY.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000), “Organisational silence: a barrier to change and development
in a pluralistic world”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 706-731.
Motwani, J. (2003), “A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing: a case
study”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 56-72.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steer, R.M. (2013), Employee-Organisation Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Mulder, M. (1963), “Group Structure Motivation and Group Performance”, Mouton & Company, Utrecht.
Nandy, A. (1990), At the Edge of Psychology: Essays in Politics and Culture, Oxford University Press,
New Delhi.
Newman, K.L. and Nollen, S.D. (1996), “Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices
and national culture”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 753-779.
NHK Culture Research Institute. (2008), “NHK survey of religion in Japan”, available at: www.nhk.or.jp/
bunken/summary/research/report/2009_05/090505.pdf (accessed 10 October 2017).
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press,
Cambridge.
Oliver, N., Delbridge, R., Jones, D. and Lowe, J. (1994), “World class manufacturing: further evidence in
the lean production debate”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 53-63.
Ortiz, C.A. (2006), Kaizen Assembly: Designing, Constructing and Managing a Lean Assembly Line,
CRC Press, FL.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Preece, D. and Jones, R. (2010), “Introduction: human resource development/management in lean
production”, International Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Quatro, S.A. (2004), “New age or age old: classical management theory and traditional organized
religion as underpinnings of the contemporary organisational spirituality movement”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 228-249.
Rai, S. (2012), Human Resource Management and Labour Relations in the Indian industrial Sector,
Social Science Research Centre, Berlin.
Ramaswamy, E.A. and Schiphorst, F.B. (2000), “Human resource management, trade unions and
empowerment: two cases from India”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 664-680.
Rawat, P.S. and Lyndon, S. (2016), “Effect of paternalistic leadership style on subordinate’s trust: an
Indian study”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 264-277.
Rhee, J., Dedahanov, A. and Lee, D. (2014), “Relationships among power distance, collectivism, Power distance
punishment, and acquiescent, defensive, or prosocial silence”, Social Behavior and Personality, in India
Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 705-720.
Richardson, M., Danford, A., Stewart, P. and Pulignano, V. (2010), “Employee participation and
involvement: experiences of aerospace and automobile workers in the UK and Italy”, European
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Rothstein, J.S. (2015), “Contextualizing work: the influence of workplace history and perceptions of the
future on lean production at three GM plants”, Critical Sociology, Vol. 42 Nos 7/8, pp. 1143-1161.
Sahay, S. and Walsham, G. (1997), “Social structure and managerial agency in India”, Organisation
Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 415-444.
Saini, D.S. and Budhwar, P.S. (2004), “HRM in India”, in Budhwar, P.S. (Ed.), Managing Human
Resources in Asia Pacific, Routledge, London, pp. 113-140.
Saini, D.S. and Budhwar, P.S. (2008), “Managing the human resource in Indian SMEs: the role of
indigenous realities”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 417-434.
Saldana, J. (2009), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, London.
Schwartz, S.H. (2004), “Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world”, in Vinken, H.,
Soeters, J. and Ester, P. (Eds), Comparing Cultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative
Perspective, Brill, Leiden, pp. 43-73.
Sen, D. (2009), From Illegal to Organic: Fair Trade-Organic Tea Production and Women’s Political
Futures in Darjeeling, Rutgers, NJ.
Sharpe, D.R. (2006), “Shop floor practices under changing forms of managerial control: a comparative
ethnographic study of micro-politics, control and resistance within a Japanese multinational”,
Journal of International Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 318-339.
Shenker, S. (1995), “Fundamental design issues for the future Internet”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas
in Communication, Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 1176-1188.
Shinkle, G., Gooding, R. and Smith, M. (2004), Transforming Strategy into Success: How to Implement a
Lean Management System. Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Sinha, J.B.P. (2004), Multinational in India: Managing the Interfaces of Cultures, Sage, New York, NY.
Sinha, J.B.P. (2014), Psycho-Social Analysis of the Indian Mindset, Springer, New Delhi.
Sinha, J.B.P. and Kanungo, R.N. (1997), “Context sensitivity and balancing in Indian organisational
behaviour”, International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 93-105.
Smitka, M.J. (1994), “The Nissan enigma: flexibility at work in a local economy”, Contemporary
Sociology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 16-17.
Som, A. (2006), “Bracing MNC competition through innovative HRM practices: the way ahead for
Indian firms”, Thunderbird International Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 207-237.
Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P.S. (1997), “Competition and change: mapping the Indian HRM recipe
against worldwide patterns”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 224-242.
Spreitzer, G. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement and
validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465.
Srivastava, A. and Kulkarni, V. (2009), “Disinvestment of National Aluminium Company Limited
(NALCO): a public sector enterprise, Government of India”, South Asian Journal of Management,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 104-131.
Stewart, P., Mrozowicki, A., Danford, A. and Murphy, K. (2016), “Lean as ideology and practice: a
comparative study of the impact of lean production on working life in automotive
manufacturing in the United Kingdom and Poland”, Competition & Change, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 1-19.
Stewart, P., Richardson, M., Danford, A., Murphy, K., Richardson, T. and Wass, V. (2009), We Sell Our
Time No More, Pluto Press, London.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
CCSM The Toyota Way (2001), “Sharing the toyota way vales”, available at: www.toyota-global.com/
company/history_of_toyota/75years/data/conditions/philosophy/toyotaway2001.html (accessed
10 October 2016).
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997), Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural
Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Turnbull, P.J. (1986), “The ‘Japanisation’ of production and industrial relations at Lucas Electrical”,
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003), “Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as
multidimensional constructs”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1359-1392.
Varma, A., Pichler, S. and Srinivas, E.S. (2005), “The role of interpersonal affect in performance
appraisal: evidence from two samples – the US and India”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 11, pp. 2029-2044.
Venkata-Ratnam, C.S. and Chandra, V. (1996), “Sources of diversity and the challenge before human
resource management in India”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 17 Nos 4/5, pp. 76-108.
Virmani, B. and Guptan, S. (1991), Indian Management, Vision Books, New Delhi.
Westerman, M.A. (2006), “Quantitative research as an interpretative enterprise: the mostly
unacknowledged role of interpretation in research efforts and suggestions for explicitly

interpretive quantitative investigations”, New Ideas in Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 189-211.
Winkler, J.K., Dibbern, J. and Heinzl, A. (2008), “The impact of cultural differences in offshore
outsourcing: case study results from German–Indian application development projects”,
Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 243-258.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and 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, Rawson Associates, New York, NY.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, CA.
Further reading
Creswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, Sage,
Thousand Oaks: CA.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1981), Effective Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Marriott, M. (1976), “Hindu transactions: diversity without dualism”, in Kapferer, B. (Ed.), Transaction
and Meaning, Institute of the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 109-142.
Mathew, S.K. and Jones, R. (2012), “Satyagraha and employee relations: lessons from a multinational
automobile transplant in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Toyota Kirloskar Motor registers highest sale in December in the last five years (2016), “Clocks a growth
of 29% when compared to December 2015”, available at: www.toyotabharat.com/news/2016/
toyota-kirloskar-motor-registers-highest-sale-in-december.html (accessed 10 November 2017).
Corresponding author
Sagi Mathew can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Cross Cultural & Strategic Management: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross Cultural & Strategic Management: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross Cultural & Strategic Management: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross Cultural & Strategic Management

Downloaded on: 22 November 2018, At: 08:50 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

1. Introduction and outline

2. Methodology and data collection

4. Power distance in India

general trend of over-reliance on superordinates for instruction, guidance and advice.

Silence in Indian culture

particularly important in the context of cross-cultural management at foreign subsidiaries of

Compliance in Indian culture

Egalitarianism, ingratiation and sycophancy in Indian culture

5. Findings and data sharing

Paternalism and “yes boss”

regarded as an additional barrier to the effective implementation of the employee

Silence and deference

However, in a performance and efficiency-driven system such as lean, kripa is often

principles of lean production techniques. It has attempted to bring together some of

Limitations and future research

Evaluation, Routledge, London and New York, NY.

unacknowledged role of interpretation in research efforts and suggestions for explicitly

You might also like