The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.

htm

Building a high-commitment lean culture

Jannis Angelis
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Building a lean culture

569
Received July 2010 Revised November 2010 Accepted December 2010

Robert Conti
Bryant University, Smitheld, Rhode Island, USA

Cary Cooper
Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster, UK, and

Colin Gill
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Purpose The characteristics of successful lean operations make a committed workforce a necessity. However, there is an ongoing debate over whether lean characteristics inherently enhance or impede commitment. The purpose of this paper is to help settle the debate, as well as provide insights into the role specic work practices play. Design/methodology/approach Based on responses from 1,391 workers at 21 lean sites, the authors examined the relationship between the degree of lean implementation and worker commitment; as well as the commitment effects of 21 lean work practices. Findings The paper examines relationships between worker commitment and lean production, sheds light on the lean commitment debate and provides guidance for designing lean systems that complement high-commitment work practices. Practical implications The results will be of value to readers with interests in operations, human resources and high-performance work practices, as well as the management and implementation of lean and its associated practices. Originality/value The study described in the paper is unique in that it establishes a statistically valid relationship between lean production and worker commitment and associated work practices. Keywords Lean production, Working practices, Commitment Paper type Research paper

Introduction Lean production is based on several key principles: eliminating wasteful activities, minimizing process variability, pursuing continuous process improvement with employee involvement, devolvement of activities such as quality inspections and periodic maintenance to line workers and maintaining synchronized production ow through shop oor visual signals. Lean proponents view committed workers as necessary for such duties (Adler, 1993; Wickens, 1987; Womack et al., 1990; Schonberger, 2007). Waste elimination reduces contingency resources such as standby workers and inventory. This creates a fragile system, making prompt worker responses essential to maintain production during disruptions such as part defects or machine malfunctions. Controlling production ow by visual signals, such as kanban cards, is effective only if workers consistently respond with appropriate actions. To ensure process consistency, workers must diligently follow standard operating procedures (SOPs) in performing

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol. 22 No. 5, 2011 pp. 569-586 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1741-038X DOI 10.1108/17410381111134446

JMTM 22,5

570

production tasks (Browning and Heath, 2009). Continuous process improvements depend on extensive voluntary worker participation (Snell and Dean, 1992; Shah and Ward, 2003). They perform quality at the source inspections, taking responsibility for checking their own work. de Treville and Antonakis (2006) posit that such autonomy comprises two distinct facets: discretion which reduces autonomy in lean, and accountability or empowerment which increases it. Since studies on Japanese manufacturing practices in the 1980s mentioned the need for self-directed, cross-functional workers and teams (Schonberger, 1986), the relationship between lean and worker commitment has been studied. Authors such as Adler (1993), Wickens (1987), Parker (2003), Shadur et al. (1995) and Vidal (2007a) provide support for the importance of worker commitment in lean systems, while Anderson-Connolly et al. (2002) explore its impact on worker well-being. Gino and Pisano (2008) argue that behavioural and technical elements need equal consideration for successful process implementation. Accordingly, Whiteld and Poole (1997), MacDufe (1995), Kochan et al. (1997) and Vidal (2007b) explore human resources that promote commitment and involvement and investigation of corresponding work practices is desirable. Research objectives Our study is designed to investigate the role of worker commitment in a lean environment and provide guidance in identifying practices that enhance commitment. As such, the research sets to answer two questions, one aggregate and one specic: RQ1. What is the relationship between lean production implementation and worker commitment? RQ2. What role do particular lean work practices have on worker commitment? To this effect, we rst examined the macro-level relationship between lean production and worker commitment, measured as affective commitment, to determine whether increased lean production inherently enhances or inhibits commitment. We then disaggregated lean into 21 work practices either directly associated with lean production, such as improvement program participation and job rotation, or those whose inuence is magnied by the repetition and high intensity of lean systems. Literature To answer the research questions, the literature is reviewed to identify relevant past research results, but also to identify relevant constructs and variables for the data collection. As such, the literature review covers key concepts and theoretical ndings of lean production work practices and worker commitment. Lean production characteristics and associated work practices are discussed rst, followed by theories on worker commitment and its relationship to work practices. Lean and employee commitment Lean encompasses a wide variety of practices, including just in time (JIT), quality system, work teams, cellular manufacturing and supplier management in an integrated system (Shah and Ward, 2007; Browning and Heath, 2009; Pettersen, 2009). But, as remarked by both Andersson et al. (2006) and Pettersen (2009), there is an absence of a consensual lean denition that may present difculties for academics as well as practitioners. Hines et al. (2004) claim lean exists at both strategic and operational levels, while Shah

and Ward (2007), Shah et al. (2008) and Bhasin and Burcher (2006) argue lean primarily has a philosophical and practical orientation. There is empirical research on lean that covers individual practices (Pil and MacDufe, 1996; Narasimhan et al., 2006; Shah and Ward, 2003; de Treville and Antonakis, 2006), but several authors (MacDufe, 1995; Shah and Ward, 2007; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009) advocate conceptualizing lean as bundles of practices. Working through 22 identied lean practices, Shah and Ward (2003) classify them into four practice bundles: total quality management (TQM), pull or JIT production, total productive maintenance (TPM) and human resource management. Similar categorisation is found in other research (Samson and Terziovski, 1999; Cua et al., 2001; Shah et al., 2008). Several authors cluster lean principles into social and technical dimensions (MacDufe, 1995; Brown et al., 2000; Olivella et al., 2008; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009). For instance, Shah and Ward (2007) dene Lean production as an integrated socio-technical system whose main objective is to eliminate waste by concurrently reducing or minimizing supplier, customer, and internal variability. This differs from the narrower denition of Hopp and Spearman (2004) who dene lean as production that minimizes buffering costs associated with excess lead times, inventories, or capacity. For either view, several authors, such as Cua et al. (2001), Bhasin and Burcher (2006) and de Treville and Antonakis (2006), suggest that workforce focused initiatives such as process improvements are a vital lean element. Similarly, Fullerton and McWatters (2001) and Schonberger (2007) claim that employee involvement is essential for the application of JIT and TQM, which in turn places emphasis on workforce commitment. Supporters view the variety of lean activities as opportunities for workers to use skills and experience well beyond the needs of production. Workers exercise judgment making inspections by evaluating their work and that of the prior operator. They apply their training and knowledge to periodically maintain equipment and interpret visual signals to manage component supply. Participation in improvement programs offers workers the opportunity to creatively solve production problems and devise product and process improvements. The expanded job scope can enhance worker commitment. The common lean policy of employment stability can provide job security and further strengthen worker commitment. This commitment can also be enhanced by the structured nature of a lean environment, where SOPs, foolproof process designs, level production rates and visual signals reduce role ambiguity and its negative impact on commitment. Contrary, lean opponents contend that while systematic waste elimination may improve performance, it also increases work load and intensity of work the proportion of work time spent on production tasks by removing excess capacity. This increases worker effort and reduces control over their time. SOPs and foolproof processes reduce role ambiguity but they also de-skill tasks and reduce worker discretion. Opponents view these outcomes as incompatible with the autonomy, control and exibility needed for high-commitment jobs (Bruno and Jordan, 2002; Walton, 1985; Walton and Susman, 1987). Skorstad (1994) even argues that worker resistance is more likely than creative involvement. Similar disruptive outcomes are predicted by Durand and Hatzfeld (2003) since lean production changes customary work methods and the associated social relationships. Parker and Slaughter (1988) argue that the JIT emphasis on waste elimination reduces excess production workers. If the workers are made redundant, the negative effect on worker commitment is obvious. Lean advocates Womack et al. (1990) agree, emphasizing management support to the work force and ensured job security.

Building a lean culture

571

JMTM 22,5

While both positions on lean and worker commitment are supported by anecdotal evidence, empirical studies such as by Parker (2003) and Lee and Peccei (2008) have explored the outcomes of worker commitment in lean systems. However, the role of specic work practices in a lean system and their impact on worker commitment remains unexplored. To this effect, the concept of worker commitment is discussed next. Worker commitment Worker commitment is linked to feelings of allegiance and loyalty toward an organization, leading an employee to remain with that organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997). The most widely employed commitment research model is the three-component model of Meyer et al. (1993). For further application, see Mohamed et al. (2006) and Scott-Lad et al. (2006). The three types are affective, continuance and normative commitment. Affective commitment is an attachment to, and identication with, an organization accompanied by a willingness to participate in activities beyond job boundaries. Continuance commitment is a decision to remain with an organization because of a lack of viable alternatives, while normative commitment is based on a sense of obligation. The three outcomes can be characterized, respectively, as I want to stay, I need to stay and I ought to stay. All three commitment forms have been correlated with positive organizational outcomes such as reduced turnover and absenteeism (Mowday et al., 1982). However, only affective commitment is strongly linked to a willingness to go beyond the boundaries of traditional production tasks and participate in activities such as improvement projects, self-inspection of work tasks and routine maintenance (Munene, 1995; Pearce, 1993; Meyer and Allen, 1997). Hence, affective commitment seems the most appropriate form for our lean response variable. On commitment research, Meyer and Allen conclude that with work experience variables, we nd the strongest and most consistent correlations with affective commitment across the board. Regarding work factors, they state:
[. . .] research highlights the importance of work experiences that communicate that the organization is supportive of its employees, treats them fairly and enhances their sense of personal importance and competence by appearing to value their contributions to the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1997, p. 45).

572

This is consistent with Womack et al. (1990, p. 99) who conclude that dynamic workers are at the heart of lean production but that workers respond only when there exists some sense of reciprocal obligation on the part of management. Several studies show strong positive links between employee perceptions of support and affective commitment (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Shore and Wayne, 1993). They also show that role ambiguity is seen by workers as a lack of organizational support and is negatively related to affective commitment (Adkins, 1995; DeCotiis and Summers, 1987; Jamal, 1990). Fairness is closely related to support and is positively associated with affective commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Loi et al., 2006). Fairness tends to be communicated through policies and practices. Downsizing during organizational changes, such as the implementation of lean production, is a very sensitive measure of fairness, seen by workers as unfair (Cameron, 1994). Evidence of management trust in workers competence and opportunities to exercise this competence are both positive factors. Affective commitment has been positively associated with participation in decision making (Dunham et al., 1994; Rhodes and Steers, 1981) and with management receptiveness to employee suggestions (Lee, 2004). Commitment also

appears to be favourably linked to worker perceptions of management competence. Womack et al. (1990) studied shop oor work teams at general motors (GM) and Ford, and observed more effective teamwork and higher morale at Ford than GM. They concluded that workers in the Ford plants had great condence in the operating management, while at GM plants, by contrast, we found that workers had very little condence that management knew how to manage Lean production (Womack et al., 1990, p. 100). Method The sample space is UK assemblers at sites with 60 or more assemblers with some degree of lean implementation. As per heterogeneity sampling plan of Cook and Campbell (1979) and similar to Fullerton et al. (2003), all 21 recruited sites were in Standard Industry Codes 35 (machinery), 36 (appliances and electronics), 37 (motor vehicles) and 38 (instruments). All are browneld sites and include both union and non-union workplaces. At sites having 60-300 assemblers, all assemblers received questionnaires. At larger sites, a random selection of 300 was made. Assemblers received instructions and were given questionnaires in stamped envelopes for anonymous posting to us. Reminders were distributed one week later. The response was 1,391 out of 2,555 questionnaires distributed (54.4 percent). At each site, we employed management and worker questionnaires, structured plant tours and management interviews. The study has both macro-and micro-dependent variables. The macro-variable is the degree of lean implementation at site level. The implementation independent variables were measured by the method of Powell (1995), and ten key lean elements: set-up reduction, inventory and waste reduction, kanban pull signals, supplier partnerships, continuous improvement programs, mixed-model production, TQM, foolproof or design for assembly systems, TPM and SOPs. These elements are similar to those proposed by other empirical research on lean that covers individual practices (Pil and MacDufe, 1996; Shah and Ward, 2003; de Treville and Antonakis, 2006; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009), but does not cluster them. Cronbachs alpha of the ten-item scale is 0.816. The implementation level of each was estimated by the manufacturing managers using a ve-point scale ranging from will not implement to advanced implementation. The micro-dependent variable is affective commitment in the form of employee and organizational commitment. The affective commitment was measured by a seven-item survey scale of the well-established ASSET questionnaire (Cartwright and Cooper, 2002). The measure of commitment also follows Meyer and Allen (1997) and Johnson and Cooper (2003) and further explored by Noor-Harun and Noor-Hasrul (2006). Participants responses were indicated using a six-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Affective commitment Cronbachs alpha is 0.837. The independent variable consists of 21 work practices, as identied by Conti and Gill (1998) and later used in the investigation of lean implications on worker stress by Conti et al. (2006). The workplace survey instrument is designed to capture the site work practices that impact on worker conditions, which in turn inuence their levels of commitment. The work practice questionnaire uses ve-point Likert scales. Analysis of variance was used to check means and condence intervals for the ve levels of affective commitment responses for each work practice. The analysis revealed some non-linear work relationships. To improve linearity for multivariate analysis, sequential levels where means did not differ signicantly were combined and the variable redened. To allow for multiple testing, the signicance level for each of these analyses was set at 0.001 or less.

Building a lean culture

573

JMTM 22,5

Multiple regression using redened variables identied relationships signicant at 0.05 or less. Affective commitment was the response variable for stepwise regression. The independent variables were 21 lean work practices and 13 control variables. The latter included demographic factors (age, gender and civil status), as well as lifestyle factors (smoking and drinking, relaxing, exercising, having a hobby and the ability to socialise) and work-specic factors (rm size, union membership, years of service and job type). Results and analysis Lean implementation and employee commitment The relationship between employee affective commitment and site lean implementation is non-linear. Best t was achieved with a concave quadratic curve (Figure 1) (F 6.65, df 1388, p , 0.001). The relationship exhibits three stages. The rst is a zone of decreasing commitment in early implementation stages. Commitment then levels off in a middle stage. Further implementation is associated with increasing affective commitment levels. Note that this was derived from a cross-sectional study. The independent variable is the implementation level at 21 sites and not time. As such, the result may illustrate the degree of implementation per se rather than how far down the implementation route the site is. However, implementation level and elapsed time since started implementing lean are signicantly correlated (r 0.583, p 0.004), so our implementation level appears a reasonable surrogate for implementation time that incorporates the notion of varied implementation speed. The rst stage of the response curve, with decreasing commitment, appears consistent with the negative reactions described by Fineman (2003). Any major change can cause
40 Observed Linear Quadratic 30 Affective commitment

574

20

10

Figure 1. Worker commitment and site lean implementation

0 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 Lean implementation

a sense of loss and uncertainty. The introduction of lean production exposes workers to new technologies, changed working relationships, and higher expectations for productivity and quality levels. Workers can be concerned about job losses due to higher productivity. These uncertainties can lead to higher stress and lower worker commitment (Shapiro, 2001; Conti et al., 2006). As implementation increases initial worker uncertainty gives way to the effects of lean characteristics, evoking both negative and positive commitment responses. Increased lean implementation increases work intensication and reduces worker autonomy, tending to reduce affective commitment. Conversely, at higher lean levels, there is increased worker participation in activities such as improvement projects, quality inspections, periodic maintenance and visual signal management contributing to enhanced commitment. While the negative and positive outcomes coexist, the upward trend of Figure 1 shows that the positive lean effects outweigh the negatives at higher implementation. The range of lean implementation levels, between 2 and 4.75 on a ve-point scale, among the sites and the large sample of workers appear to support the conclusion that at macro-level lean is neither inherently favourable nor systemically detrimental to affective commitment. Our results reveal potential for favourable lean outcomes, as also suggested by Schouteten and Benders (2004), Lee and Peccei (2008) and Puvanasvaran et al. (2008), while anecdotal and ethnographic studies show that mismanaged lean systems can be unfavourable for workers (DeSantis, 1999; Fucini and Fucini, 1990; Graham, 1995; Parker and Slaughter, 1988). It appears that the lean commitment response is not deterministic. It depends on the effectiveness of management in designing and operating the lean system. Lean work practices are major elements of this design and operation. Hence, they are important micro-level determinants of worker commitment. These are discussed next. Work practices and employee commitment On the impact of each work practice on employee commitment, the regression results are shown in Table I. Model F is 22.733 (df 1390), p , 0.001 and adjusted R 2 0.347. There is no evidence of collinearity, with all variance ination factor values well below the cutoff of 10.0 (Hair et al., 1995). Examination of the normal distribution plot of model residuals indicates an excellent t to a linear model. In total, 14 work practices are signicant at 0.05 or less. They are grouped in the gure as either positively or negatively associated with commitment, in descending order of inuence as measured by standardized coefcients. Seven control variables are signicant at 0.05 or less and they are categorized as favourable or unfavourable. When controlling for plant site, the analysis produced the same signicant work practices, indicating that unobserved site characteristics have not affected outcomes. Signicant and favourable work practices Seven work practices are unambiguously favourable in their impact, and they appear to constitute a practice bundle for enhancing commitment: allowing workers to participate in improvement projects, using buffers to uncouple sequential work stations, increasing cycle times through parallel work ows, providing help in meeting production standards when needed, using job rotation to expose workers to a variety of tasks and displaying individual output where practical. Improvement participation has the highest positive inuence of the tested work practices. Lean on-line production tasks are by necessity non-discretionary, and can

Building a lean culture

575

JMTM 22,5

Positive (Favourable)

Std beta

Sig 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.032 0.655 0.663 0.062 0.222 0.000 0.048

Negative (Unfavourable) Too long hours Speed not quality Ergonomic difculty Blame for defects Lack of tools Pace/intensity Flow interruptions Pace control Change autonomy Training Social difcultiesa Years of service Female gendera Union membera Civil status Exercise Relax Firm size

Std beta 20.154 20.140 20.075 20.074 20.052 20.066 20.060 0.022 0.030 20.030 20.088 20.077 20.072 20.050 20.048 0.009 20.035 20.017

Sig 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.037 0.009 0.018 0.422 0.205 0.200 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.050 0.036 0.694 0.137 0.509

576

Work practices signicant 0.05 or less Improvement projects 0.187 Task support 0.092 Buffer use 0.099 Job rotation 0.057 Cycle time 0.059 Parts t difculties 0.089 Individual output display 0.049 Work practices not signicant Absentee worker 20.011 Removal frequency 0.011 Team work 0.043 Comments on change 0.028 Control variables signicant 0.05 or less Age 0.133 Drinka 0.045

Table I. Signicant independent variables, with affective commitment as dependent variable

Control variables not signicant Job type 0.025 Smokea 20.038 Hobby 20.039 Note: aCoded (0,1)

0.295 0.093 0.090

be hygienic and non-motivating in the terminology of Herzberg et al. (1959). Improvement programs offer workers the opportunity to exercise off-line creativity and ingenuity, expanding job scope and qualifying as motivational activities that enhance commitment. These programs also show trust in worker competence, fairness in equal participation opportunities, management competence in tapping the reservoir of worker talent and support in providing project time and technical advisors. Lean operates with balanced material ow between sequential work stations. In the absence of buffers, capacity is reduced by uctuations in task times. Simulations by Conway et al. (1988) show that unbuffered lines with task time coefcients of variation (CV) from 0.1 to 0.5 can reduce potential output by 10-35 percent, while modest buffers of ten times the CV recover 80-85 percent of capacity lost due to variability. Buffer sizes at our sites ranged between two and ve units, as also reported by Ishida (1997) in the Kyushu Toyota plant featuring linked mini-assembly lines with buffers of three to ve cars between segments. Buffers also reduce the pressure felt by workers when task times vary and provide pace control. Such increases in control and autonomy expand job scope, indicating trust in worker competence and management support in providing buffer inventories. Task support has a similarly positive inuence on commitment. Task support is provided by co-workers, team members and supervisors to perform tasks and meet production and quality standards. The availability of this help is tangible evidence of management support, fairness and competence.

The positive result of having difculties in tting parts is unexpected since workers normally consider parts t problems as frustrating, with negative commitment consequences. It may be that workers view cope with poor ts as a break in their repetitive routine and evidence of trust in their competence to cope if problems are infrequent. This may be the case among our sampled workers, with 65 percent ranked the frequency of t problems as never, rarely or sometimes while 35 percent reported encountering them often or very often. Cycle time is the time required to perform a complete set (one cycle) of assigned tasks at a work station. As cycle time increases, the degree of repetitiveness decreases (fewer cycles per hour) and the number and range of tasks often increase. Longer cycles make it more practical to speed up for a portion of the cycle and then rest for the remainder. These increases in job scope and job control are favourable for affective commitment. Job rotation also has a positive inuence on commitment. Job rotation is the performing of a variety of production tasks on different job assignments on a scheduled basis. Rotation increases the scope of production duties and can be seen as trust in the ability of workers to multi-task and support in providing task variety to prevent repetitive motion injuries. On the display of individual output, lean uses extensive visual signals to trigger actions such as replenishing empty parts containers or tracking performance. The interdependent nature of lean material ow favours group output displays. However, the use of individual displays personalize output, and can be viewed as support in providing timely feedback and minimizing role ambiguity. Signicant and unfavourable practices Seven work practices have signicant negative relationships with affective commitment, and these are discussed next. Lean production uses levelled production rates to permit synchronized parts ow. Therefore, it is most efcient to increase output in the short term by operating at these same rates for additional hours with overtime. Overtime in lean production is normally mandatory since all sequential work stations must be manned by qualied workers. However, this can be viewed as unfair since it interferes with workers control over personal time. It may also be perceived as lack of management support if increased worker cross-training could enable voluntary overtime. There is empirical support for the negative impact of overtime. Obeng and Ugboro (2003), in their study of commitment among transit workers, argue that overtime hours was negatively related to affective commitment. Management emphasis on speed over quality has a negative impact on worker commitment. If management emphasizes work speed and output more than quality, workers may be frustrated trying to meet quality standards with insufcient time to do so. This can be seen as a lack of fairness and support. Workers may also feel pressured to ignore a key lean principle stopping the production line when a defect occurs calling into question managerial competence. Ergonomic difculties, such as repetitively lifting heavy items or positioning components difcult to locate and grasp, is caused by a lack of proper tools and faulty process design. The increased effort and higher injury rates of ergonomic shortcomings are unfair to workers, reveal inadequate support and lack of managerial competence in implementing lean production all detrimental to affective commitment. Moreover, the lack of proper tools causes ergonomic difculties, engendering the same negative impact

Building a lean culture

577

JMTM 22,5

578

on commitment associated with those difculties. It can also lead to quality problems, raising managerial competence issues. The sequential ow of lean production combined with quality at the source operator inspections makes defect location traceable to specic workers. This can create what Delbridge and Turnbull (1992) term a blame culture. Lean principles emphasize identifying and eliminating defect causes not assigning blame. Defects are seldom caused by operator error. Therefore, a feeling of being blamed for defects can be seen as unfair which in turn impedes worker commitment. Work pace has a signicant and negative inuence on employee commitment, as also suggested by Shadur et al. (1995). Work pace is the speed of performing tasks. In combination with intensity, i.e. the proportion of working time spent performing tasks, it determines the time available for workers to complete tasks (Conti and Gill, 1998). Such inadequate times can be viewed as unfair and evidence of a lack of support, both which have a negative inuence on commitment. Finally, disruptions of work ow also have a negative impact on worker commitment. Lean production emphasizes continuous material ow, and on the shop oor, workers strive to achieve a steady rhythm of repetitive tasks. Flow interruptions that disrupt this rhythm can be frustrating. In the early days of the Toyota Production System, frequent interruptions discouraged workers and harmed morale, until consistent ow was achieved (Womack et al., 1990). The frustration of interruptions raises questions of managerial support and competence. These unfavourable practices cluster into four managerial action categories to enable greater worker commitment. First, overtime should be voluntary, aided by the cross-training of workers to expand the volunteer pool. Second, task time standards should be set with pace and intensity set at normal levels, as dened by industrial engineering practice (Panico, 1982) and with the work pace subordinated to quality standards. Third, process designs should emphasize eliminating ergonomic difculties, providing adequate tools and minimizing ow interruptions. Finally, supervisory training and disciplinary policies must emphasize blame free defect investigations. Signicant control variables In total, 13 control variables were included in the regression model and seven show signicant relationships with commitment (Table I). Our results concur with Meyer and Allen (1997) that relations between demographic variables and affective commitment are neither strong nor consistent. For instance, Allen and Meyer (1993) nd that affective commitment increases signicantly with employee age which is consistent with our result. Contrary, Obeng and Ugboro (2003) report that age is not signicantly related to affective commitment. However, they also indicate tenure is negatively related to commitment the same as our result. Moreover, we nd female gender to be negatively related to affective commitment, the same as Marsden et al. (1993) who found a small but signicant tendency for employed men to display higher organizational commitment than employed women do. Their explanation is that more men than women have access to commitment-enhancing jobs. However, the results differ from those by Meyer and Allen (1997), whose research suggests that gender and affective commitment are unrelated. Similarly, civil status is signicantly but negatively correlated with the degree of affective commitment, suggesting that married employees feel less committed to the workplace than those that

are single or unmarried with partners. Note that contrary, continuance commitment may be positively correlated with civil status, with married workers feeling a greater need to ensure an income. Meanwhile, the signicant relationship between drinking alcohol and affective commitment is noteworthy. Moore et al. (2000) argue that there is a threshold effect, where well-being and attitude towards work only decline at high levels of alcohol consumption. Since relatively, few workers are problematic drinkers Moore et al. (2000) state a gure of 2.6 percent in their study, but that many do drink, this helps explain the control variables signicance. The nal two signicant control variables are in line with expectations. Difculty in socializing with fellow workers is negatively associated with commitment levels, since workers faced with this difculty are less likely to volunteer for commitment enhancing activities such as improvement projects. Union membership is also negatively related to commitment. This is consistent with ndings by both Cohen (1993) and Lee (2004). While successful lean systems can provide competitive advantage, they may also intensify work and reduce worker control and autonomy. This raises several questions: if commitment is essential to lean production success and its characteristics inherently inhibit commitment, how do we reconcile our results with such improved performance? Why do not reduced autonomy and control and increased intensication have stronger negative inuences on affective commitment? Why is not work pace control, process change autonomy, or the ability to comment on changes signicantly associated with affective commitment? In Figure 1, why does not commitment exhibit a negative slope as implementation increases? de Treville and Antonakis (2006) help to answer these questions. In their study of whether lean job design can be intrinsically motivating, they develop a job characteristics model (JCM) linking intrinsic worker motivation to outcomes of work performance, absenteeism and job satisfaction outcomes associated with affective commitment. To reect lean, core JCM job characteristic of autonomy were divided into choice and responsible autonomy. Choice autonomy corresponds to the JCM dened freedom over job procedures and timing. Loss of choice autonomy is offset by increased responsible autonomy in lean production (de Treville and Antonakis, 2006). Workers exercise responsible autonomy by making quality inspections, managing visual control signals, performing routine maintenance and participating in problem solving and improvement programs. A second modication is the addition of work facilitation. This is the systematic removal of barriers to workers achieving their objectives, for instance through standard process control, SOP, design for assembly and foolproof design. The model incorporates four psychological states experienced by workers: meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of work; and self-efcacy or experienced job competence. This latter state reects the role of lean practices such as job rotation, SOPs and training in developing worker competence. Collectively, the four states are a measure of intrinsic motivation, mediating relationships between job characteristics and work performance outcomes, absenteeism and job satisfaction. While lean sharply reduces choice autonomy, there are the offsetting benets of increased responsible autonomy (de Treville and Antonakis, 2006). This explains the relatively benign inuence of reduced choice autonomy on our commitment results. However, the lean favourable impact on skill variety, responsible autonomy and work facilitation is moderated by excessive leanness an absence of the lean resources needed by workers to perform effectively, develop job skills, exercise responsible autonomy and benet from work facilitation.

Building a lean culture

579

JMTM 22,5

580

Lean intensication has two causes: waste elimination activities and setting production time standards. Lean emphasizes eliminating wasteful activities such as worker delays waiting for maintenance men, set up men or inspectors; and production interruptions from machine breakdowns or parts shortages. Eliminating these activities results in fewer intermittent informal breaks for the workers, intensifying their workday. However, intensity drivers are the policies for setting time standards and the associated manning levels since they affect workers continuously throughout the workday. A time standard is determined by the time needed to perform a task, allowing for fatigue. Industrial engineering practice bases the performance time on a normal work pace (Panico, 1982). Increased work cycle intensity reduces the number of workers for a given output. Since time standard is a function of pace and intensity, increased work pace has potential for causing excessive leanness. Not surprisingly, the regression results show that emphasis of speed over quality and the level of work pace and intensity are negatively associated with affective commitment. Management can avoid contributing to excessive leanness by basing time standards and workforce manning on normal work pace levels and reasonable intensity allowances. Other work practices can contribute to excessive leanness. Ergonomic difculties, lack of tools and ow interruptions all negatively impact work facilitation and self-efcacy. Having to work long hours and feeling being blamed for defects interfere with exercising responsible autonomy and developing self-efcacy. Conclusions This study set out to explore the relationship between lean production and worker commitment. Following the research questions, overall lean implementation impact on employee commitment as well as the role of particular work practices was investigated. Both our macro-implementation analysis and our micro-regression work practice results support the conclusion that affective commitment is neither inherently supported by lean production nor inherently impeded by it. Rather, enhancing commitment appears to be conditional, depending on the effectiveness of management in designing and operating the lean technical and human resource policies and practices. This further supports the results of other lean studies (Shadur et al., 1995; Anderson-Connolly et al., 2002; Bhasin and Burcher, 2006) and studies on high-involvement practices (Adler, 1993; MacDufe, 1995; Vidal, 2007a). This conditional nature of the commitment response also helps to explain the divergence of lean outcomes reported in various studies. For further managerial insight, the positive and negative impacts of particular work practices on worker commitment are discussed next. The presented results provide guidance for managers when implementing or already employing lean production. Our results show seven work practices favourably inuence commitment while seven other have a negative inuence. The former primarily provide workers with autonomy and the perception of control. The potential for low choice autonomy jobs to be intrinsically motivating is an important contribution to the job design theory proposed by Conti and Warner (2003). They show that non-discretionary job designs are necessary for high reliability, particularly in sequentially assembled products with functionally interacting parts, where lean also commonly is employed (Walton and Susman, 1987; Bruno and Jordan, 2002). Therefore, de Treville and Antonakis (2006), Parker (2003) and Lee and Peccei (2008) argue managers should allow for employee autonomy and functional exibility while control for task discretion through

fool-proong techniques when employing lean. Managing this dual pressure of controlling job discretion for improved quality and allowing job discretion for improved worker commitment, Van Hootegem et al. (2004) propose a system that combines the benets of non-discretionary work tasks on the production line with improvement projects conducted by workers temporarily taken off from the line. Each worker rotates through on-line tasks with limited discretion through design for manufacturing and poka yoke techniques to off-line improvement tasks focused on particular areas (e.g. quality and safety). Such dual system provides the quality benets of low task control with the social and individual benets of greater task control, with the additional advantage of capturing worker improvement insights (Angelis and Fernandes, 2007). Meanwhile, unfavourable practices cluster into social and technical elements, supporting the notion of MacDufe (1995), Shah and Ward (2003, 2007), Bhasin and Burcher (2006) and Hallgren and Olhager (2009). The social element covers blame and long working hours, as supported by Delbridge and Turnbull (1992) and Obeng and Ugboro (2003), respectively. Technical elements that negatively inuence commitment increase work demand through poor design, such as inappropriate ergonomics or tools. The results suggest that managers can take action to enable greater worker commitment. Importantly, overtime should be voluntary and supported by multi-skilled workers to ensure sufcient candidates. Pace and intensity task time standards should be set at normal levels, as dened by industrial engineering practice, and subordinated to quality standards. Process design should eliminate ergonomic difculties, provide adequate tools and minimize ow interruptions. Finally, supervisory training and disciplinary policies must emphasize blame-free defect investigations. The identied non-signicant work practices indicate practices with a social element, such as team work and lling in for absent workers, have limited inuence on employee commitment. The same applies to training. This suggests that right attitude (e.g. towards participating in improvement projects) is a key employee characteristic, and that managers must ensure that particular attention and emphasis is placed on it for worker selection and job task allocation. Studying the effects of work practices and lean implementation required a trade-off between lower measurement reliability for increased scope. Combining items into scales would increase reliability but at the expense of not being able to assess the broad range of commitment implications in a survey of feasible length. Our worker returns represent a large sample, but the site sample size may appear moderate. This was addressed by heterogeneity sampling, recruiting sites that employ a variety of processes and practices. Our sample of manufacturers is opportunistic and the sites are likely biased toward enlightened work practices. Also, sites are all in the UK. This may limit the applicability of our results.
References Adkins, C. (1995), Previous work experience and organizational socialization, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 839-62. Adler, P. (1993), Time and motion study regained, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 97-198. Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1993), Organizational commitment, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 49-61.

Building a lean culture

581

JMTM 22,5

582

Anderson-Connolly, R., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E. and Moore, S. (2002), Is lean mean? Workplace transformation and employee well-being, Work Employment Society, Vol. 16, pp. 389-413. Andersson, R., Eriksson, H. and Torstensson, H. (2006), Similarities and differences between TQM, Six Sigma and lean, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 282-96. Angelis, J. and Fernandes, B. (2007), Lean practices for product and process improvement: involvement and knowledge capture, in Olhager, J. and Persson, F. (Eds), International Federation for Information Processing, Advances in Production Management Systems, Vol. 246, Springer, Boston, MA, pp. 347-54. Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P. (2006), Lean viewed as a philosophy, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 56-72. Brown, K., Willis, P. and Prussia, G. (2000), Predicting safe employee behaviour in the steel industry, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18, pp. 445-65. Browning, T. and Heath, R. (2009), Reconceptualizing the effects of lean on production costs with evidence from the F-22 program, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27, pp. 23-44. Bruno, R. and Jordan, L. (2002), Lean production and the discourse of dissent, Working USA, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 108-34. Cameron, K. (1994), Strategies for successful organizational downsizing, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33, pp. 189-211. Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C. (2002), ASSET: An Organisational Stress Screening Tool the Management Guide, RCL, Manchester. Cohen, A. (1993), Age and tenure in relation to organizational commitment, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 143-59. Conti, R. and Gill, C. (1998), Hypothesis creation and modelling in job stress studies, International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 149-73. Conti, R. and Warner, M. (2003), A customer-driven model of job design, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 2-19. Conti, R., Angelis, J., Cooper, C., Faragher, B. and Gill, C. (2006), The effect of lean production on worker job stress, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 1013-38. Conway, R., Maxwell, W., McLain, J. and Thomas, J. (1988), The role of work-in-process inventory in serial production lines, Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 229-41. Cook, C. and Campbell, R. (1979), Quasi-experimentation, Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA. Cua, K., McKone, K. and Schroeder, R. (2001), Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 675-94. DeCotiis, T. and Summers, T. (1987), A path analysis of a model of the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment, Human Relations, Vol. 40, pp. 445-70. Delbridge, R. and Turnbull, P. (1992), Human resource maximization, in Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing Human Resource Management, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. DeSantis, S. (1999), Life on the Line, Doubleday, New York, NY. de Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), Could lean production design be intrinsically motivating?, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 99-123. Dunham, R., Grube, J. and Castenada, M. (1994), Organizational commitment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 370-80. Durand, J. and Hatzfeld, N. (2003), Living Labour, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 51-9. Fineman, S. (2003), Understanding Emotions at Work, Sage, London. Folger, R. and Konovsky, M. (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 115-30. Fucini, J. and Fucini, S. (1990), Working for the Japanese, The Free Press, New York, NY. Fullerton, R. and McWatters, C. (2001), The production performance benets from JIT implementation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 81-96. Fullerton, R., McWatters, C. and Fawson, C. (2003), An examination of the relationships between JIT and nancial performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 383-404. Gino, F. and Pisano, G. (2008), Toward a theory of behavioral operations, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 10, pp. 676-91. Graham, L. (1995), On the Line at Suburu-Isuzu, ILR, Ithaca, NY. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hallgren, M. and Olhager, J. (2009), Flexibility congurations, Omega, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 746-56. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY. Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24, pp. 994-1011. Hopp, W. and Spearman, M. (2004), To pull or not to pull, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-48. Ishida, M. (1997), Japan: beyond the model for lean production, in Kochan, T., Lansbury, R. and MacDufe, J. (Eds), After Lean Production, ILR, Ithaca, NY, pp. 45-60. Jamal, M. (1990), Relationship of job stress and type-A behavior to employees job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems and turnover motivation, Human Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 727-38. Johnson, S. and Cooper, C. (2003), The construct validity of the ASSET stress measure, Stress and Health, Vol. 19, pp. 181-5. Kochan, T., Lansbury, R. and MacDufe, J. (1997), After Lean Production, ILR, Ithaca, NY. Konovsky, M. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 668-707. Lee, J. (2004), Company and union commitment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1463-80. Lee, J. and Peccei, R. (2008), Lean production and quality commitment, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-25. Loi, R., Hang-yue, N. and Foley, S. (2006), Linking employees justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 101-20. MacDufe, J. (1995), Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 48, pp. 197-221. Marsden, P., Kalleberg, K. and Cook, C. (1993), Gender differences in organizational commitment, Work & Occupation, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 368-90.

Building a lean culture

583

JMTM 22,5

584

Meyer, J. and Allen, N. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Sage, London. Meyer, J., Allen, N. and Smith, C. (1993), Commitment to organizations and occupations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 538-51. Mohamed, F., Taylor, G. and Hassan, A. (2006), Affective commitment and intention to quit, Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 512-31. Moore, S., Grunberg, L. and Greenberg, E. (2000), The relationships between alcohol problems and well-being, work attitudes, and performance, Journal of Substance Abuse, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 183-204. Mowday, R., Porter, L. and Steers, R. (1982), Organization Linkages, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Munene, J. (1995), Not on seat: an investigation of some correlates of organizational citizenship behavior in Nigeria, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 44, pp. 111-222. Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S. (2006), Disentangling leanness and agility: an empirical investigation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24, pp. 440-57. Noor-Harun, A. and Noor-Hasrul, N. (2006), Evaluating the psychometric properties of Allen and Meyers organizational commitment scale, Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-101. Obeng, K. and Ugboro, I. (2003), Organizational commitment among public transit workers, Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 83-98. Olivella, J., Cuatrecasas, L. and Gavilan, N. (2008), Work organisation practices for lean production, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 798-811. Panico, J. (1982), Work standards, in Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Industrial Engineering Handbook, Wiley, New York, NY. Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988), Choosing Sides, South End, Boston, MA. Parker, S. (2003), Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and the mediating role of work characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 620-34. Pearce, J. (1993), Toward and organizational behavior of contract laborers, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1082-96. Pettersen, J. (2009), Dening lean production, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 127-42. Pil, F. and MacDufe, J. (1996), The adoption of high-involvement work practices, Industrial Relations, Vol. 35, pp. 423-56. Powell, T. (1995), Total quality management as competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 15-37. Puvanasvaran, A., Megat, M., Tang, S., Muhamad, M. and Hamouda, A. (2008), A review of problem solving capabilities in lean process management, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 504-11. Rhodes, S. and Steers, R. (1981), A career stage analysis of career and organizational commitment in nursing, Human Relations, Vol. 12, pp. 1013-35. Samson, D. and Terziovski, M. (1999), The relationship between total quality management practices and operational performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 393-409. Schonberger, R. (1986), World Class Manufacturing, The Free Press, New York, NY. Schonberger, R. (2007), Japanese production management, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 403-19. Schouteten, R. and Benders, J. (2004), Lean production assessed by Karaseks job demand job control model, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 347-73.

Scott-Lad, B., Travaglione, A. and Marshall, V. (2006), Causal inference between participation in decision making, task attitude, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment, Leadership and Organizational Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 399-414. Shadur, M., Rodwell, J. and Bamber, G. (1995), Factors predicting employees approval of lean production, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 12, pp. 1403-26. Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2003), Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, pp. 129-50. Shah, R. and Ward, P. (2007), Dening and developing measures in lean production, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, pp. 785-815. Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Linderman, K. (2008), In pursuit of implementation patterns: the context of lean and Six Sigma, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6679-99. Shapiro, G. (2001), Exploring the impact of changes in work organization on employees, AI and Society, Vol. 15, pp. 4-21. Shore, L. and Wayne, S. (1993), Commitment and employee behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 774-80. Skorstad, E. (1994), Lean production, conditions of work and worker commitment, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 429-56. Snell, S. and Dean, J. (1992), Integrated manufacturing and human resource management, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 467-504. Van Hootegem, G., Rik Huys, R. and Delarue, A. (2004), The sustainability of teamwork under changing circumstances, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 773-86. Vidal, M. (2007a), Lean production, worker empowerment, and job satisfaction, Critical Sociology, Vol. 33, pp. 247-78. Vidal, M. (2007b), Manufacturing empowerment? Employee involvement in the labour process after Fordism, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 197-232. Walton, R. (1985), From control to commitment in the workplace, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 76-85. Walton, R. and Susman, G. (1987), People policies for the new machines, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 98-106. Whiteld, K. and Poole, M. (1997), Organizing employees for high performance, Organization Studies, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 745-64. Wickens, P. (1987), The Road to Nissan, Macmillan, London. Womack, J., Jones, D. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York, NY.

Building a lean culture

585

Further reading Beehr, T. (1995), Psychological Stress in the Workplace, Routledge, London. Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1975), Development of the job diagnostic survey, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-70. Hunter, L. and Thatcher, S. (2007), Feeling the heat: effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 953-68.

JMTM 22,5

Mehri, D. (2006), The darker side of lean, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-42. Schonfeld, I., Rhee, J. and Xia, F. (1995), Methodological issues in occupational stress research, in Sauter, S. and Murphy, L. (Eds), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. About the authors Jannis Angelis is an Assistant Professor of Operations Management at Warwick Business School, where he teaches operations strategy and operations management, and an Afliated Researcher at CTPID, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at the University of Cambridge. Jannis Angelis is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jannis@angelis.se Robert Conti is a Professor of Operations Management at the School of Management, Bryant University, and a regular Academic Visitor to the Engineering Department at the University of Cambridge. Cary Cooper is Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health at Lancaster University Management School and Pro Vice Chancellor of Lancaster University, England. He is former President of the British Academy of Management and is Chair of the Sunningdale Institute, a UK governmental think tank. Colin Gill is a University Senior Lecturer in Management Studies in the Manufacturing and Management Division, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

586

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints