2. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
The effect of organizational culture on implementing and sustaining lean
processes
Fatma Pakdil Karen Moustafa Leonard
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fatma Pakdil Karen Moustafa Leonard , (2015),"The effect of organizational culture on implementing
and sustaining lean processes", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 5 pp.
725 - 743
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2013-0112
Downloaded on: 08 June 2015, At: 06:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 138 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 61 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Azharul Karim, Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman, (2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean
strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912
Jagdish R. Jadhav, Shankar S. Mantha, Santosh B. Rane, (2014),"Exploring barriers in lean
implementation", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 122-148 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2012-0014
Niall Piercy, Nick Rich, (2015),"The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 Iss 2 pp. 282-315 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0143
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 126741 []
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.
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
3. *Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
5. Introduction
Although the term lean has been used to indicate lean production or lean manufacturing, it
has come to refer to lean processes that encompass all organizational functions. Lean is
similar to the ideas in total quality management (TQM), just-in-time (JIT), and Six Sigma,
because they share the same fundamental approaches (Naslund, 2008) and similar
results of high quality, high service, and support of strategic goals (Blanchard, 2007).
There are particular dimensions conceptualizing lean processes throughout the
organization: Employee involvement; Creativity, problem-solving processes, and
decentralization; Control and standardization; and Efficiency, productivity, and
continuous quality improvement. The cultural infrastructure within the organization
affects the success of implementing and sustaining lean processes.
Lean systems thinking has been widely studied using relevant variables, but there is
a lack of published theoretical or empirical evidence about the cultural aspects of lean
processes (cf., Hook and Stehn, 2008). The lack of conceptual development is one of the
motivations for this study. Do organizational cultural variations correlate with the success
and effectiveness of lean processes? What organizational infrastructures cultures work
best for effective lean implementation and its continuation? In examining this issue of
organizational culture, the Competing Values Framework is used. There are four types
of culture examined in the framework, group, development, hierarchical, and rational
culture, with a combination of all called a balanced culture. In this paper, a brief discussion
of lean processes and organizational culture leads to a model and propositions which
identifies those cultural dimensions that might be useful in managing lean processes.
Lean processes
Womack and Jones (1994) and Wilson (2010) suggested that the main thrust of lean
concepts is the total elimination of all waste by all organizational members from all
processes. Although often presented as a cost-reduction mechanism (Achanga, 2006;
Bicheno, 2004), it is much more. Bozdogan (2010) clearly identified lean management as
a top to bottom process, including shareholders and all other stakeholders, creating a
network of organizational capabilities resulting in competitive advantage.
Lean processes are also known by earlier terms of JIT and the Toyota Production
System (TPS), because of its roots in the industrial engineering department of Toyota.
The ability to reduce costs and increase flexibility has been shown to give a firm
competitive advantage by creating superior performance (Im and Lee, 1989; Lathin,
2001; Li et al., 2005; Liker, 2004; Narasimhan et al., 2006; Nystuen, 2002; Shah and Ward,
2003; Sohal and Egglestone, 1994; White et al., 1999).
Liker (2004) identified dualities in the lean processes: continuous improvement (kaizen)
and respect for people. For example, although the development of standard operating
procedures is an essential principle of lean (Niepce and Molleman, 1996; Olivella et al.,
2008), it can discourage employees from participation (Olivella et al., 2008). Effective
implementation and continuation requires trained human resources (Birdi et al., 2008),
because improving and exploiting knowledge capture leads to competitive advantage
(Appelbaum et al., 2000; Lawler et al., 1992, 1995; Pfeffer, 1994; Way, 2002). However,
control and management control are also essential (Mann, 2005; Mehri, 2006).
The particular lean process dimensions conceptualizing lean processes throughout
the organization are: Employee involvement; Creativity, problem-solving processes,
and decentralization; Control and standardization; and Efficiency, productivity, and
continuous quality improvement. Organizational culture infrastructure affects the
success of implementing and sustaining lean processes.
726
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
6. Organizational culture
Organizational culture impacts performance because it affects individual behaviors
(Calori and Samin, 1991; Yin-Cheong, 1989). It is a key factor in successful lean
processes because culture determines whether an idea or process is accepted or rejected
(Crandall and Crandall, 2011). Organizational culture is the belief system that members
of an organization share, including ways of working, traditions, stories, and acceptable
methods to achieve goals (Calori and Samin, 1991; Hofstede, 2001; Schein, 2004).
Culture is cumulative, evolving over time as people share experiences, adapt to similar
conditions, and deal with their physical and social environments (Hofstede, 2001).
Much of the research on organizational culture has been focussed on understanding
and defining it, but to appropriately support management objectives, the impact of
organizational culture must be examined (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991).
Culture is tacit, socially constructed, and operates on the unconscious level (Bate,
1984; Beyer and Trice, 1987; Meyer, 1995; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 2009; Smircich, 1983).
In organizations, shared values are essential to efficiency, because they help members
choose which behaviors they will exhibit (Jehn et al., 1997) and create the expectations
of what behaviors are acceptable (Calori and Samin, 1991; Denison, 1984; Hemmelgarn
et al., 2001; Glisson and James, 2002; Kanter, 1983; Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Lim, 1995;
Peters and Waterman, 1982; Petty et al., 1995; Wilderom et al., 2000; Wilkins and
Ouchi, 1983). Organizational culture reduces uncertainty, encourages social exchange
(Sriramesh et al., 1996), and gives organizations their distinct identities (Chaung
et al., 2004; Tajfel and Turner, 1986). Hall and Hall (1987) stated that culture programs
the actions and responses of every person.
Socialization is the process of explaining to new members the way things are done
and expectations of performance (Bate, 1984; Calori and Samin, 1991; Jablin, 2001;
Moreland and Levine, 2000; Riddle et al., 2000; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979).
Successful socialization creates organizational commitment (cf. Allen and Meyer, 1990;
Cooper-Thomas and Anderson, 2005). Members who are poorly socialized may remain
“outsiders,” in terms of the group or organizational social circle (Feldman, 1976; Myers
and McPhee, 2006; Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992).
Organizational culture is multidimensional (Ott, 1989), and multiple categorizations
have been developed providing valuable insights into their effect on the whole
organization (cf. Kets de Vries and Miller, 1986; Martin, 1992; Quinn and Rohrbaugh,
1983). However, of those efforts, Quinn and Spreitzer’s (1991) Competing Values
Framework is the most frequently used in conceptual and empirical studies of
organizational behavior and performance (Gregory et al., 2009) and, therefore, most
relevant to lean processes. Quinn and colleagues’ (e.g. Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Quinn
and Spreitzer, 1991) work resulted from spatial analysis of effectiveness measures
(Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983), which has developed into a measure to assess culture and
organizational effectiveness.
This framework of four quadrants has the capability to define requirements for
effective lean processes because each quadrant has a high degree of congruence with
more complex schema (Cameron and Quinn, 1999), creating a holistic view of culture
types (Zammuto and Krakower, 1991). This approach separates indicators into two
major dimensions: effectiveness and focus. Effectiveness criteria are along
a continuum, with flexibility and discretion at one end, opposed by stability and
control at the other. Internal focus is at one end of a second (intersecting) continuum,
including organizational cohesion and consonance, while external focus is at the
opposite end, including differentiation and independence (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
727
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
7. This creates the four quadrants of the Competing Values Framework: Group,
Developmental, Hierarchical, and Rational. Each quadrant identifies those values that
the organizational culture defines as appropriate core values to support. This Framework
is illustrated in Figure 1.
Brief descriptions and previous research concerning various dimensions of
organizational culture are discussed as follows.
Organizational culture and lean processes
Lean is a broad concept with multiple implications (Mehta and Shah, 2005). There are
definite aspects of organizational culture that affect lean processes. Crandall and
Crandall (2011) suggested that organizational culture can block the implementation of
improvement programs – these implementations cannot be completed in the same way
that a new machine is introduced (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 1999). Support for
the implementation of lean processes throughout a firm is a precondition (Dahlgaard
and Dahlgaard-Park, 1999), just as it is for any successful collective effort on the part of
a firm (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). At the beginning of lean implementation, objectives
of strategy and competitive advantage must be measured against the ability of the
organizational culture to sustain them (Zu et al., 2010). If the culture does not support
the necessary lean processes, then the culture must be altered, if implementation
is to be successful and continuation assured (Shook, 2010). The key is to understand
which processes are supported by the different cultures that are possible within
an organization.
In discussing Quinn and Spreitzer’s (1991) organizational culture measurement, it is
clear that there is considerable overlap between the various lean processes and their
Flexibility and Spontaneity
(High Flexibility)
Internal
Maintenance
and Integration
(Internal Focus)
Group Culture:
Participation
Teamwork
People focus
Communication
Morale
Commitment
“Participation fosters
commitment”
Development Culture:
Creativity
Growth
Flexibility
Innovation
New Resources
“Innovativeness fosters new
resources”
External
Positioning and
Differentiation
(External Focus)Hierarchical Culture:
Centralization
Order
Regulation
Control
Timeliness
Smooth functioning
“Control fosters efficiency”
Rational Culture:
Efficiency
Task focus
Goal orientation
Competition
Market Share
“Competition fosters
productivity”
Control and Stability
(Low Flexibility)
Source: Quinn and Spreitzer (1991)
Figure 1.
Competing values
framework
728
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
8. cultural dimensions. There seem to be some definitive areas to examine these processes
under specific dimensions of group, development, hierarchical, and rational culture, and
Figure 2 illustrates the propositions presented in the next subsections.
Group culture
Group culture is often called a clan culture, because of its family-type structures and
internal environment (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). In the model, it is represented by high
flexibility and an internal focus, including a focus on the employee (Cameron and
Quinn, 1999). Shared values, participation, and collaboration were found in this culture,
with teamwork, employee involvement, and corporate commitment to workers driving
the firm (Lincoln, 1990; Ouchi, 1981; Pascale and Athos, 1981). These researchers noted
that rewards are based on team achievements, quality circles address process
problems, and suggestion systems allow employees a voice – all aimed at improving
company performance through empowerment. In these cultures, employees, suppliers,
and customers are considered partners with management to achieve organizational
goals, which are defined by the internal needs of the firm and employees (Cameron and
Quinn, 1999).
Employee
involvementGroup Culture
Creativity, problem
solving processes,
decentralization
Developmental
Culture
Balanced
Culture
More effective
lean processes
Control,
standardization, and
predictable
performance
outcomes
Hierarchical
Culture
Efficiency,
productivity, and
continuous quality
improvement
Rational Culture
ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURE
LEAN PROCESSES
Figure 2.
The relationships
between lean
management and
organizational
culture within the
competing values
framework
729
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
9. These organizational cultures are often created when there is high goal congruence and
high performance ambiguity (Ouchi, 1980). They are identified by minimal levels of
management, consensus, information sharing, high morale, work teams, job rotation,
participation by employees, and lifetime job security (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
Cameron and Freeman (1991) found that group culture was most effective for firms
with a need for with high morale and higher levels of participation.
Ouchi (1981) and Pascale and Athos (1981) found significant differences between the
design forms of America and Japan, classifying Japanese designs as primarily clan
cultures. Japanese companies have a unique labor-management relationship that
requires provision of stable employment and use of consensus decision making, while
requiring workers to be loyal and cooperative (Mehri, 2006). This prevents
confrontation, particularly because of the family-like culture in these organizations
(Mehri, 2006). Respect for people is a hallmark of successful lean processes, and the idea
of “them versus us” does not exist (Dennis, 2002). Focus on the process without
a parallel focus on people has been cited as one of the reasons that lean implementation
often fails when transferred to firms in other countries (Liker and Franz, 2011).
Implementing and sustaining lean processes relies heavily on groups, including
continuous quality improvement, decision making, and consensus building. It is
a program driven by employee involvement (Liker et al., 1999). The group provides
protection from individual criticism in the quality improvement arena and provides
structure, using defined norms and beliefs from the culture itself (Hodson and
Sorrentino, 2003). In successful lean implementation, employees improve systems
through collaboration, consensus building, suggestion systems, and group decision
making. To achieve this requires high performing and self-managed teams, continuous
quality improvement teams, quality control circles, and total productive maintenance
(TPM) teams. Top management teams actively support suggestions and decisions by
employees throughout the organization, at all levels. Fewer buffers allow collaboration
between workers and functions (Mehta and Shah, 2005).
Empowerment can lead to higher performance (Anderson et al., 1994), especially
when the manager is a facilitator rather than a supervisor (Naor et al., 2010). Delegation
of more traditional management activities to front line employees requires them to be
given authority and have the capability (education and training) to be involved in
planning and decision-making processes (Dahlgaard and Dahlgaard-Park, 1999).
Employees in lean process systems must be able to incorporate quality in the product
or service, that is, to stop processes immediately when an error is found for correction
on the spot (Dennis, 2002; Shook, 2010). Visual controls are needed, so that front line
workers can see when errors or outliers occur (Mann, 2005). An example of the group
organizational culture can be found in Accenture (Whitney, 2013). It is clear that the
management team values the knowledge sharing that group culture brings, and they
are aware that their success is dependent upon the people performing their processes.
Using the literature concerning organizational culture and lean processes, the
following proposition was developed:
P1. A firm characterized by an emphasis on group culture will have more effective
lean processes, in terms of employee involvement and teamwork, compared with
firms that are characterized by one of the other three quadrants.
Developmental culture
Developmental culture (also called adhocracy or entrepreneurial culture) arose from the
move from the Industrial to the Information Age because it is most responsive of
730
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
10. the four quadrants to external hypercompetition (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). In the
model, it is represented by high flexibility and an external focus. In this organizational
culture, little is static or stable, because flexibility and creativity are the primary
organizational goals used to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity (Cameron and
Freeman, 1991; Cameron and Quinn, 1999). There is a high emphasis on individuals,
risk, and preparing for the future.
This organizational culture is more likely to support high-technology and/or high-risk
organizations, primarily because of their environment. There is little centralization in
developmental cultures because the dynamic nature of the firm requires everyone to be
trained, developed, and empowered. Structure is often a result of a particular project;
a change in project requires a change in structure. In an analysis of a state government
change from hierarchy to developmental culture, Quinn and Cameron (1983) noted that
most of the structure in the new culture was temporary – no hierarchical chart, job
roles, or designated physical spaces (such as offices). Entrepreneurial leadership is
required, and creativity and innovation are essential for the organization to be dynamic
and change rapidly (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
A developmental culture fosters lean processes, as managers are responsible for
both development of employees and for performance (Liker and Franz, 2011; Mann,
2005). For example, new employees in Japanese firms are given a mentor upon
employment (Hall and Hall, 1987). Also, it is understood in Japan that, if an individual
disappears for a while, the individual will demonstrate an improvement upon return
(Imai, 1986). Continuous improvement is the driving force of performance in Japanese
firms (Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1951, 1989; Deming, 1986), and it is a supporting structure
for developmental culture. Activities that challenge workers and provide learning
experiences show respect (Liker and Franz, 2011; Mann, 2005). Meaningful work helps
encourage participation and self-development (Liker and Franz, 2011). Leaders do not
make decisions or set the work activities, as this is also disrespectful (Liker and Franz,
2011); instead they teach and challenge workers to develop solutions (Mann, 2005).
Decentralization creates empowerment and freedom; “it signals a trust and belief in
the individual’s capabilities” (Naor et al., 2010, p. 196). The accessibility created by
decentralization allows front line employees to approach higher level managers without
the usual reserve found in centralized organizations. In Toyota Japan, the top example
of a lean organization, there are no walls; offices are a large room with rows of desks
where everyone sits together (Dennis, 2002). It is an interesting dynamic that enables
people and their ideas for improvement to move freely up and down the chain of
command (Dennis, 2002).
In using lean processes, external involvement is essential; firms work closely with
their suppliers under long-term cooperative agreements, interlocking business
relationships, and reciprocal shareholdings (Bozdogan, 2010; Herron and Hicks,
2008). Supplier development teams are a key component of success in Japanese car
manufacturers (Sako, 2004). The partnerships and collaboration, which are key to lean
processes, require a long time frame for development and refinement (Dahlgaard and
Dahlgaard-Park, 1999). In the west, firms work with independent suppliers without
reciprocal loyalty (Lloyd et al., 1994). Short time frames in the west prohibit the best use
of lean processes, particularly in this area. This is not an argument that the Japanese
way is superior to the west; it is an argument that the two systems work differently
with different outcomes.
The continuous improvement of lean processes requires long-term commitments
from firms, top management, and employees (Atkinson, 2010; Emiliani, 2003; Gregory, 2002;
731
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
11. Liker, 2004). In this environment, everyone has dual responsibilities to another paradox:
the day-to-day success of the business and continuous improvement that allows the
business to continue in the future (Mann, 2005; Womack and Jones, 1996). Planning
requires both short and long time frames to address needs and develop capabilities
(Dennis, 2002).
An example of the developmental culture is AT&T, who has developed an
interrelationship between technology and learning for their own employees, to address
the constant change in their technologically driven environment (Hartley, 2013).
To promote this developmental culture, they designed an AT&T University to promote
the company’s long-term planning efforts. The learning initiatives are focussed on the
business objectives. Developmental culture affects lean processes in the manner
outlined in the following proposition:
P2. A firm characterized by an emphasis on developmental culture will have more
effective lean processes, in terms of creativity, problem-solving processes, and
decentralization, compared with firms that are characterized by one of the other
three quadrants.
Hierarchical culture
Hierarchical culture (also called the market or results-oriented culture: Cameron and
Quinn, 1999) was the first quadrant identified in scientific management, most notably
by Max Weber (1947). He identified the classical attributes of bureaucracy, including
strict training and rules, specialization, meritocracy, impersonality, and accountability.
This was the predominant form of organizational culture through the 1960s
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). In the framework, this dimension is characterized by low
flexibility and internal focus. There is intense specialization and uniformity,
resulting in little flexibility concerning rules, which allows outputs to be consistent
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999). The dominant operational approach in this culture is
efficiency, that is, effectiveness, timeliness, predictability, and elimination of waste
and redundancy (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). It is a formal and structured workplace.
Japanese lean organizations have a culture of written and unwritten rules, and
employees are carefully socialized into the way things are done in the firm
(Mehri, 2006). Lean approaches help manage issues of pay, absences, rotation, staff
levels, performance, involvement, job grades and classifications, layoffs, and other
human resource issues (Mann, 2005). One paradox of lean processes is that, despite
the collaboration and cooperation needed, company wage structure in lean Japanese
companies is based on seniority (Mehri, 2006).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) address quality strategies in hierarchical culture as
error detection, measurement, process control, and applying quality tools. All these
strategies are the driving forces of lean processes. As in the JIT process, lean processes
are designed to produce a continuous value flow, supporting better control of
abnormalities and customer response (Dennis, 2002). In successful implementation and
continuation of lean processes, measurements are made constantly and in every minor
element of the work (Wilson, 2010). The hierarchical structure is promoted, where
a worker approaches the supervisor before anyone else (Mehri, 2006). Hall and Hall
(1987) indicated that Japanese firms have strong hierarchies, and leadership and
decision making is highly structured. The shared thinking, behaving, and dressing
commonly found in Japanese lean organizations promote bonding and organizational
commitment (Dennis, 2002; Mehri, 2006), but there is no equality – everyone has a rank
above or below another worker (Naor et al., 2010). Some disagree; Storhagen (1993)
732
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
12. found that flat organization hierarchies were an important organizational prerequisite
for lean production, when there is equal (and opposite) support for hierarchy.
Standardization is a primary element in lean processes (Mann, 2005). Bozdogan (2010)
and Womack and Jones (1996) proposed value, value stream, flow, pull, and perfection
as basic principles of lean processes, all of which require control. Quick responses to
problems are essential, as there is no toleration for waste of time fixing issues – however,
the paradox is that proactivity is essential in lean process (Mann, 2005), and requires
employee involvement, which takes time. Planning, measurement, and response in the
hierarchical culture mandates a short time frame (Liker and Franz, 2011), which is
diametrically opposed to the long-term commitment required for continuous improvement
(Atkinson, 2010; Mann, 2005; Womack and Jones, 1996).
An example of a hierarchical culture is McDonald’s Corporation, where most
employees have no training before joining the company. Most government organizations
are hierarchical, as there are few decisions that do not conform to a decision tree, giving
little scope for acting outside of the rules.
Hierarchical culture affects lean processes as described by the proposition:
P3. A firm characterized by an emphasis on hierarchical culture will have more
effective lean processes, in terms of control, standardization, and predictable
performance outcome techniques, compared with firms that are characterized
by one of the other three quadrants.
Rational culture
Also termed market culture, rational culture is based primarily on concepts from Ouchi
(1981) and Williamson (1975), who identified activities creating organizational
effectiveness, with selective customers. This dimension is characterized by low
flexibility and external focus. It is focussed toward a hostile external environment
rather than the internal environment, including suppliers, customers, and regulators,
and its primary aim is to improve its competitive position (Cameron and Freeman, 1991;
Cameron and Quinn, 1999). These cultures are noticeably efficient when there is high
goal incongruence and low performance ambiguity (Ouchi, 1980).
Rational cultures have core values of competitiveness and productivity, focussing
on the bottom line and profitability (Cameron and Quinn, 1999). To achieve this focus,
they concentrate on their customers and on improving their competitive advantage.
The external environment drives activities within the company toward winning,
creating leaders centered primarily on achievement. Quality strategies in rational
culture are improving productivity, measuring customer preferences, creating
partnership, enhancing competitiveness, and involving customers and suppliers
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
A main concern in lean implementation is to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and
productivity as much as possible, thereby creating a powerful competitive advantage
which will continue, using lean processes. At the bottom line, breakthrough and kaizen
improvements lead to reach better performance levels in each of these concerns
(Deming, 1986). The existence of long- and short-term corporate performance
management systems emphasizes the importance of rational values. On the other hand,
customer satisfaction and loyalty, external forces, are also main concerns in lean
processes, reflecting the rational culture. Lean tools such as value stream mapping,
TPM, statistical process control, JIT, small lots, also reflect the rationale culture.
In lean processes, decisions are made based on facts, not on the power of managers
or teams within the organization (Deming, 1986; Juran, 1989; Liker and Franz, 2011),
733
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
13. which leads to an interesting change for most top management teams. Naor et al. (2010)
stated that a culturally appropriate decision-making structure helps because lean
processes require using scientific methods and data to create accurate forecasts.
Production team leaders in lean firms train operators in the process and teach them to
monitor and improve it (Mann, 2005). Lean processes are interdependent, much more so
than conventional processes (Mann, 2005). Results matter, but so do processes, which is
a different concept than that used in conventional processes (Mann, 2005).
Enron exhibited elements of rational culture, although dysfunctional in nature.
The culture was designed to focus on competition and profit, but not on the other parts
needed for a successful rational culture: productivity and customer satisfaction
(McLean and Elkind, 2004). Most restaurants (business organizations) have a primarily
rational organizational culture, as the focus is on efficiency, effectiveness, and
productivity to continue the business.
From our review of the literature, the following proposition results:
P4. A firm characterized by an emphasis on rational culture will have more effective
lean processes, in terms of efficiency, productivity, and continuous quality
improvement, compared with firms that are characterized by one of the other
three quadrants.
Balanced culture
Few successful organizations exist at the extremes. In the framework, a balanced
culture is one where values within each of the quadrants are strong. The balance means
that flexibility and uniformity are both valued, within their appropriate arenas, and the
organization is aware of both internal and external influences that require change or
uniformity in member behaviors. All four quadrants of values are necessary for an
organization to be successful (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991). This is particularly true of
lean processes, primarily because of the duality involved in both lean processes and
good management practices.
Processes contain duality and paradox (Dennis, 2002). For example, lean production
systems involve multi-skilled operators, organized into small teams, responsible for
quality, continuous improvement, and problem solving (Niepce and Molleman, 1998),
within certain controls and specifications (Mehri, 2006). Cooperation and group
processes are hallmarks of lean; but all human resource processes require control
(Mann, 2005). Liker and Franz (2011) reflect on this multiple effect of these
organizational cultures within the various aspects of lean processes:
Toyota has passion for excellence, an obsession with satisfying customers, striving for
perfection, driven by core values, highly self-critical leaders who are humble and leave their
egos at home, a desire to build something that will endure forever, and complete faith that
investing in people is the only way to succeed (p. 3).
Toyota possesses and promotes a balanced culture, which is one of the reasons that it
has been so successful in implementing lean processes within its global business.
TPSs is an example of lean processes that is heavily promoted in the literature as the
preeminent example of lean production. This lean production system has spread
throughout all of Toyota’s processes, and all of the production support systems
(e.g. human resources, finance) use lean processes.
Three studies (Cameron and Freeman, 1991; Yeung et al., 1991; Zammuto and
Krakower, 1991) suggested that the values of one cultural quadrant need to be balanced
with others for true organizational effectiveness. For example, Storhagen (1993) found
734
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
14. that flat organization hierarchies were an important organizational prerequisite for lean
production, and there is equal but opposite support for hierarchy in other studies,
as discussed above. Quinn (1988) stated that this balance also assists in individual
productivity within organizations, because “too much of anything can have negative
consequences” (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991, p. 128). Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) advised
that, when imbalances are found in one quadrant, managers will need to focus
resources on the weaker quadrant. These different effects on the various parameters of
lean processes suggest a further proposition:
P5. A firm characterized by a balanced culture will have the most effective lean
processes, compared with firms that are characterized by a single quadrant.
Organizational culture has an effect on each aspect of lean processes. Therefore, the
more balanced the organizational culture is within the four quadrants, the more likely
that implementing and sustaining lean processes will be successful (see Figure 3 for an
example of how this might be visualized).
In Figure 3, we demonstrate the measurement of a firm with a balanced culture originally
from Demir et al. (2011), where the following measures using ratings on the Cameron and
Quinn (1999) instrument are: Group culture: 27.82; Development culture: 23.31; Rational
Culture: 19.02; Hierarchical culture: 26.49.
The end of the arrows indicate 50 and the center indicates (0); therefore, all of the
measurements are similar, although not equal. This would be the demonstration of
a balanced culture. A culture with an unbalanced culture (i.e. not reasonably equal in all
quadrants) would be diagnosed by the culture in which it ranked highest, such as
a development culture or a group culture, or if two were within a similar distance from
each other, a dual culture, such as a development/group culture.
Flexibility and Spontaneity
(High Flexibility)
Internal
Maintenance
and Integration
(Internal Focus)
Group Culture: Development Culture:
External
Positioning and
Differentiation
(External Focus)
Hierarchical Culture: Rational Culture:
Control and Stability
(Low Flexibility)
Notes: Group culture: 27.82; Development culture: 23.31; Rational
Culture: 19.02; Hierarchical culture: 26.49
Source: Demir et al. (2011)
Figure 3.
Example of a
balanced culture on
the Quinn and
Spreitzer framework
735
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
15. Conclusion
We have considered the parallels between organizational culture and lean processes,
finding that the literature strongly suggests that culture affects processes in multiple
ways. This paper is the first attempt to examine lean efforts with the lens of
organizational culture. The Competing Values Framework (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1991)
is a logical step to take in examining these possible effects on implementing and
sustaining lean process. The challenge to implement and sustain lean processes lies in
the need to identify the organizational culture infrastructure that will allow this system
first used by Japanese firms to operate well in other organizational contexts (Liker et al.,
1999). The values and norms that underlie lean processes may create conflict with the
culture that already exists within the organization; such divergence retards adoption
and performance (Naor et al., 2010).
This investigation examines the relationships between organizational culture and
lean process effectiveness. As discussed, cultural characteristics are the most important
factor in lean processes in many studies (Kwak and Anbari, 2006). Knowing which
dimensions influence lean effectiveness and the way that they wield that influence
allows managers to develop the firm’s organizational culture to one that will support
implementing and sustaining lean efforts. The challenge to implement and sustain lean
processes lies in the need to identify the organizational culture infrastructure that will
allow this system first used by Japanese firms to operate well in other organizational
contexts. The values and norms that underlie lean processes may create conflict with
the culture that already exists within the organization; such divergence retards
adoption and performance.
In using this information practically, managers need to first understand their
organization’s prominent organizational dimension and then make changes, based on
what lean processes they wish to prioritize. Not all firms wish to achieve all lean
processes at one time. So if, for example, the firm is in the entrepreneurial dimension,
but there are a lot of returns of goods or complaints about service, managers might
want to consider instituting some controls, which would increase the amount of
hierarchical and/or rational culture dimension in their firm.
Designing organizational culture is beyond the scope of this paper, but developing
a strategy for change is an important feature of any organizational change.
However, designing the culture that enables the best balance for the particular lean
implementation desired takes time and effort, but has been found to be worthwhile
(cf. Briody et al., 2012; Conceicao and Altman, 2011; Hartmann and Khademian, 2010;
Ray and Goppelt, 2011; Schein, 2004; Smollan, 2013; Wright, 2013; Whitehead, 2001).
Furthermore, which dominant organizational culture may have a potential to increase
effectiveness on lean processes is given in detail above in each section. For further
or deeper organizational changes, we suggest that managers will want to view the
work of Schein (2004), who is arguably one of the foremost specialists in the area of
organizational culture change.
Implementation of lean processes in the west has been largely unsuccessful,
according to research; we propose that one of the reasons may be the lack of
understanding which cultural dimensions are aligned to lean processes. It is clear that
there is a duality in lean processes between the need for control and the need for
innovation. This takes a very balanced and well-managed organizational culture to
prevent one part from overwhelming the other. And it may be that certain societal
cultures allow the development of organizational cultures that promote lean processes
better – a topic for another area of research.
736
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
16. Other future research directions include the interconnections between each of the
measures. Another fruitful avenue would be measurement of organizational culture in
firms that have implemented lean processes. This would be a step toward looking at the
effect that the different quadrants in the Competing Values Framework have on
various elements of lean efforts. This would take a significant amount of work, because
the manufacturing industry, the leader in implementing and sustaining lean processes,
may have institutionalized particular organizational cultures. It would be an interesting
step forward in our understanding of how lean processes are operationalized across
different firms and industries.
References
Achanga, P. (2006), “Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 460-471.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “Organizational socialization tactics: a longitudinal analysis of
links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 847-858.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994), “A theory of quality
management underlying the Deming management method”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 472-509.
Appelbaum, E.T., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2000), Manufacturing Advantage:
Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY.
Atkinson, P. (2010), “‘Lean’ is a cultural issue”, Management Services, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 35-41.
Bate, P. (1984), “The impact of organizational culture on approaches to organizational problem
solving”, Organization Studies, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-66.
Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1987), “How an organization’s rites reveal its culture”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 5-24.
Bicheno, J. (2004), The New Lean Toolbox Towards Fast and Flexible Flow, PICSIE Books,
Buckingham.
Birdi, K., Clegg, C., Patterson, M., Robinson, A., Stride, A.B., Wall, T.D. and Wood, S.J. (2008),
“The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company
productivity: a longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 467-501.
Blanchard, D. (2007), “Census of US manufacturers – lean green and low cost, Industry week,
available at: www.industryweek.com/articles/census_of_u-s-_manufacturers_–
_lean_green_and_low_cost_15009.aspx October 2007.
Bozdogan, K. (2010), “Evolution of the lean enterprise system”, in Blockley, R. and Shyy, W. (Eds),
Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, John Wiley & Sons.
Briody, E., Pester, T. and Trotter, R. (2012), “A story’s impact on organizational-culture change”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 67-87.
Calori, R. and Samin, P. (1991), “Corporate culture and economic performance: a French study”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 49-74.
Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S. (1991), “Cultural congruence, strength, and type: relationships to
effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-58.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Chaung, Y.-T., Church, R. and Zikic, J. (2004), “Organizational culture, group diversity, and
intra-group conflict”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 26-34.
737
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
17. Conceição, S.O. and Altman, B.A. (2011), “Training and development process and organizational
culture change”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Anderson, N. (2005), “Organizational socialization: a field study into
socialization success and rate”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 116-128.
Crandall, R.E. and Crandall, W.E. (2011), “Three little words”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 43
No. 6, pp. 42-47.
Dahlgaard, J.J. and Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (1999), “Integrating business excellent and innovation
management: developing a culture for innovation, creativity, and learning”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4/5, pp. S465-S472.
Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Demir, C., Unnu, N.A.A. and Erturk, E. (2011), “Diagnosing the organizational culture of
a Turkish pharmaceutical company based on the competing values framework”, Journal of
Business Economics and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 197-217.
Denison, D.R. (1984), “Bring corporate culture to the bottom line”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 59-76.
Dennis, P. (2002), Lean Production Simplified, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Emiliani, M.L. (2003), “The inevitability of conflict between buyers and sellers”, Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 107-115.
Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A practical program for employee socialization”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 64-80.
Glisson, C. and James, L.R. (2002), “The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human service
teams”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 767-794.
Gregory, A. (2002), “Can lean save UK manufacturing?”, Works Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 1-6.
Gregory, B.T., Harris, S.G., Armenakis, A.A. and Shook, C.L. (2009), “Organizational culture and
effectiveness: a study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 673-679.
Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1987), Hidden Differences: Doing Business with the Japanese, Anchor
Press, New York, NY.
Hartley, D. (2013), “AT&T: the marriage of business and learning”, Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 32-34.
Hartmann, J. and Khademian, A.M. (2010), “Culture change refined and revitalized: the road show
and guides for pragmatic action”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 6, pp. 845-856.
Hemmelgarn, A.L., Glisson, C. and Dukes, D. (2001), “Emergency room culture and the emotional
support component of family-centered care. Children’s Health Care, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 93-110.
Herron, C. and Hicks, C. (2008), “The transfer of selected lean manufacturing techniques from
Japanese automotive manufacturing into general manufacturing (UK) through change
agents”, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 524-531.
Hodson, G. and Sorrentino, R.M. (2003), “Uncertainty orientation in the group context:
categorization effects on persuasive message processing”, Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 143 No. 3, pp. 291-312.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,
2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hook, M. and Stehn, L. (2008), “Applicability of lean principles and practices in industrialized
housing production”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 1091-1100.
Im, J.H. and Lee, S.M. (1989), “Implementation of just-in-time system in US manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
738
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
18. Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ishikawa K. (1985), What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall,
New York, NY.
Jablin, F.M. (2001), “Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit”, in Jablin, F.M.
and Putnam, L.L. (Eds), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances
in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 732-818.
Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997), “To agree or not to agree: the effects of
value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup
outcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305.
Juran, J.M. (1951), Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Juran, J.M. (1989), Juran on Leadership for Quality, Free Press, New York, NY.
Kanter, R. (1983), The Change Masters, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. and Miller, D. (1986), “Personality, culture, and organization”, The Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 266-279.
Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Kwak, Y.H. and Anbari, F.T. (2006), “Benefits, obstacles, and future of Six Sigma approach”,
Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5/6, pp. 708-715.
Lathin, D. (2001), “Lean manufacturing”, American Society for Quality Journal, December, pp. 2-9.
Lawler, E.E. III, Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1992), Employee Involvement and TQM:
Practice and Results in Fortune 1,000 Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lawler, E.E. III, Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E. (1995), Creating High Performance
Organizations: Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Total Quality
Management in Fortune 1,000 Companies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Li, S., Rao, S.S., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Ragu-Nathan, B. (2005), “Development and validation
of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management practices. Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 618-641.
Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Liker, J.K. and Franz, J.K. (2011), The Toyota Way to Continuous Improvement, Mc-Graw Hill,
New York, NY.
Liker, J.K., Fruin, W.M. and Adler, P.S. (1999), Remade in America: Transplanting and
Transforming Japanese Management Systems, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Lim, B. (1995), “Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link”,
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 16-21.
Lincoln, J.R. (1990), “Japanese organization and organization theory”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 225-294.
Lloyd, A.R., Dale, B.G. and Burnes, B. (1994), “Study of Nissan motor manufacturing (UK)
supplier development team activities”, Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical
Engineering, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, Vol. 208 No. 1, pp. 63-68.
McLean, B. and Elkind, P. (2004), The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and
Scandalous Fall of Enron, Penguin, New York, NY.
Mann, D. (2005), Creating a Lean Culture, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
739
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
19. Mehri, D. (2006), “The darker side of lean: an insider’s perspective on the realities of the Toyota
production system”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-42.
Mehta, V. and Shah, H. (2005), “Characteristics of a work organization from a lean perspective”,
Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 14-20.
Meyer, J.C. (1995), “Tell me a story: eliciting organizational values from narratives”,
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 210-224.
Moreland, R.L. and Levine, J.M. (2000), “Socialization in organizations and work groups”, in
Turner, M.E. (Ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research, Psychology Press, pp. 69-112.
Myers, K.K. and McPhee, R.D. (2006), “Influences on member assimilation in workgroups in high-
reliability organizations: a multilevel analysis”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 32
No. 4, pp. 440-468.
Naor, M., Linderman, K. and Schroeder, R. (2010), “The globalization of operations in eastern and
western countries: unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture
and its impact on manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 194-205.
Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S. and Mahapatra, S.K. (2006), “Multiproduct, multicriteria model for
supplier selection with product life-cycle considerations”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 577-603.
Naslund, D. (2008), “Lean, Six Sigma and lean sigma: fads or real process improvement
methods?”, Business Process Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 269-287.
Niepce, W. and Molleman, E. (1996), “Characteristics of work organization in lean production and
sociotechnical systems: a case study”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 77-90.
Niepce, W. and Molleman, E. (1998), “Work design issues in lean production from a sociotechnical
systems perspective: neotaylorism or the next step in sociotechnical design”, Human
Relations, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 259-287.
Nystuen, T. (2002), “Big results with less”, Quality Progress, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 51-55.
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.
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992), “Organizational socialization as a learning process: the
role of information acquisition”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 849-874.
Ott, S.J. (1989), The Organizational Culture Perspective, Dorsey, Chicago, IL.
Ouchi, W.G. (1980), “Markets, bureaucracies and clans”, Administrative science quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 129-141.
Ouchi, W.J. (1981), “Theory Z: How American Business can Meet the Japanese Challenge, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Pascale, R. and Athos, A. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Simon & Schuster,
New York, NY.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1979), “On studying organizational cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 570-581.
Petty, M.M., Beadles, N.A., Lowery, C.M., Chapman, C.F. and Connell, D.W. (1995), “Relationships
between organizational culture and organizational performance”, Psychological Reports,
Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 483-492.
Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Quinn, R.E. (1988), Beyond Rational Management, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
740
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
20. Quinn, R.E. and Cameron, K.S. (1983), “Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria of
effectiveness”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: toward
a competing values approach to organizational analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 363-377.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), “The psychometrics of the competing values culture
instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life”,
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 115-142.
Ray, K.W. and Goppelt, J. (2011), “Understanding the effects of leadership development on the
creation of organizational culture change: a research approach”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Riddle, B.L., Anderson, C.M. and Martin, M.M. (2000), “Small group socialization scale”, Small
Group Research, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 554-572.
Sako, M. (2004), “Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative studies of
organisational capability enhancement”, Industrial Corporate Change, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 281-308.
Schein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schein, E.H. (2009), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide, John Wiley, San Francisco, CA.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Shook, J. (2010), “How to change a culture: lessons from NUMMI”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 63-68.
Smircich, L. (1983), “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 339-358.
Smollan, R.K. (2013), “Trust in change managers: the role of affect”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 725-747.
Sohal, A.S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), “Lean production: experience among Australian
organizations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 11, pp. 35-51.
Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J.E. and Dozier, D.M. (1996), “Observation and measurement of two
dimensions of organizational culture and their relationship to public relations”, Journal of
Public Relations Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 239-261.
Storhagen, N.G. (1993), Management and Flow Efficiency in Japan and Sweden, Linkoping
University Press, Linkoping.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. (1986), “The social identity of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S.
and Austin, W. (Eds), Psychology and Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL,
pp. 7-24.
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”, Research
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 209-244.
Way, S.A. (2002), “High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm
performance within the US small business sector”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 6,
pp. 765-785.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Reform, Trans by Henderson & Parsons,
Free Press, New York, NY.
White, R.E., Pearson, J.N. and Wilson, J.R. (1999), “JIT manufacturing: a survey of implementation
in small and large US manufacturers”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
741
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
21. Whitehead, P. (2001), “Team building and culture change: well-trained and committed teams can
successfully roll out culture change programmes”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 184-192.
Whitney, K. (2013), “Accenture: exploring all the angles”, Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 50-51.
Wilderom, C.P.M., Glunk, U. and Maslowski, R. (2000), “Organizational culture as a predictor of
organizational performance”, in Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom, C.P.M. and Peterson, M.F.
(Eds), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 193-210.
Wilkins, A.L. and Ouchi, W.G. (1983), “Efficient culture: exploring the relationship between
culture and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 468-481.
Williamson, O. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies, Free Press, New York, NY.
Wilson, L. (2010), How to Implement Lean Manufacturing, Mc-Graw Hill, New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D.T. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 93-103.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Wright, L. (2013), “Quality improvement and organizational change initiatives: an analysis of the
US Army’s warrior transition unit (WTU)”, Academy of Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Yeung, A.K.O., Brockbank, J.W. and Ulrich, D.O. (1991), “Organizational culture and human
resources practices: an empirical assessment”, Research in Organizational Change and
Development, Vol. 5, pp. 59-81.
Yin-Cheong, C. (1989), “Organizational culture: development of a theoretical framework for
organizational research”, City University of Hong Kong Education Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 128-147.
Zammuto, R.F. and Krakower, J.Y. (1991), “Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational
culture”, Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 5, pp. 83-114.
Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), “Mapping the critical links between
organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 86-106.
Further reading
Chiang, F.F.T. and Birch, T. (2007), “The transferability of management practices: examining
cross-national differences in reward preferences”, Human Relations, Vol. 60 No. 9,
pp. 1293-1330.
Choi, T.Y. and Liker, J.K. (1995), “Bringing Japanese continuous improvement approaches to US
manufacturing: the roles of process orientation and communications”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 589-620.
Denton, P.D. and Hodgson, A. (1997), “Implementing strategy-led BPR in a small manufacturing
company”, Technology Exploitation Process Conference, pp. 1-8.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), “Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-
sharing network: the Toyota case”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
Garvin, D.A. (1986), “Quality problems, policies, and attitudes in the United States and Japan: an
exploratory study”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 653-673.
742
JMTM
26,5
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
22. Hogan, B.J. (2009), “Sustaining a lean culture”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 143 No. 5,
pp. 71-76.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 420-437.
Kettinger, W. and Grover, V. (1995), “Toward a theory of business process change management”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
Kull T.J. and Wacker, J.G. (2010), “Quality management effectiveness in Asia: the influence of
culture”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 223-239.
Liker, J.K. (1998), “Introduction: bringing lean back to the USA”, in Liker, J.K. (Ed.), Becoming
lean: Inside Stories of US Manufacturers, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, pp. 3-40.
Lillrank, P. (1995), “The transfer of management innovations from Japan”, Organization Studies,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 971-989.
Lozeau, D., Langley, A. and Denis, J.L. (2002), “The corruption of managerial techniques by
organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 537-564.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Chatman, J.A. (1996), “Culture as social control: corporations, cults, and
commitment”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 157-200.
Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, C.M. (2005), “The relationship between total quality management
practices and organizational culture”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
Repenning, N.P. and Sterman, J.D. (2001), “Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never
happened: creating and sustaining process improvement”, California Management Review,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 64-88.
Schonberger, R.J. (1982), “The transfer of Japanese manufacturing management approaches to US
industry”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 479-488.
Shook, J. (1998), “Bringing the Toyota production system to the United States: a personal
perspective”, in Liker, J. (Ed.), Becoming Lean, Productivity Press, Portland, OR, pp. 43-69.
Tari, J.J., Molina, J.F. and Castejon, J.L. (2007), “The relationship between quality management
practices and their effects on quality outcomes”, Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 183
No. 2, pp. 483-501.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (1992), “Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-579.
Turnbull, P.J. (1986), “The ‘Japanisation’ of production and industrial relations at Lucas
electrical”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of
40 years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Zhao, X.D., Yeung, A.C.L. and Lee, T.S. (2004), “Quality management and organizational context
in selected service industries of China”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 575-587.
Corresponding author
Dr Karen Moustafa Leonard can be contacted at: kxleonard@ualr.edu
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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
743
Implementing
and sustaining
lean processes
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)
![Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
The effect of organizational culture on implementing and sustaining lean
processes
Fatma Pakdil Karen Moustafa Leonard
Article information:
To cite this document:
Fatma Pakdil Karen Moustafa Leonard , (2015),"The effect of organizational culture on implementing
and sustaining lean processes", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 Iss 5 pp.
725 - 743
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2013-0112
Downloaded on: 08 June 2015, At: 06:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 138 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 61 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Azharul Karim, Kazi Arif-Uz-Zaman, (2013),"A methodology for effective implementation of lean
strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 169-196 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637151311294912
Jagdish R. Jadhav, Shankar S. Mantha, Santosh B. Rane, (2014),"Exploring barriers in lean
implementation", International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 122-148 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-12-2012-0014
Niall Piercy, Nick Rich, (2015),"The relationship between lean operations and sustainable operations",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 Iss 2 pp. 282-315 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2014-0143
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 126741 []
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.
DownloadedbyAuburnUniversityAt06:4508June2015(PT)]()