Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WORKING PAPER 0209
THE THREE "C's" OF MOTIVATION IN LEAN
PRODUCTION:
COMMITMENT, COMPLIANCE, OR
CONFLICT?
Suzanne de Treville
And
John Antonakis
1
THE THREE "C's" OF MOTIVATION IN LEAN PRODUCTION:
COMMITMENT, COMPLIANCE, OR CONFLICT?
Suzanne de Treville1 & John Antonakis
Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales
University of Lausanne
1Corresponding author: Suzanne de Treville Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales University of Lausanne 616 – BFSH-1 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland Telephone: +41 21 692 3448 E-mail: [email protected]
2
Abstract
Is lean production motivating? Over twenty years after the arrival of lean production, this
question has not been resolved. In this paper, we develop a model to theoretically explain the
relationship between job characteristics and motivational outcomes in lean production,
demonstrating that intrinsic motivation under a complete implementation of lean production is
theoretically possible; however, it is bounded by limited self-determination and excessive
leanness , which could lead to compliance or even resistance.
3
Lean production (LP) is a manufacturing strategy that emphasizes flow, elimination of waste, and
respect for workers. Early adopters of LP changed the nature of competition in repetitive
manufacturing industries as a result of increased productivity, quality, and rate of learning. The
impact of LP on competitiveness was so profound that for several years after its arrival, the
competitive strategy of companies not using LP in those industries was reduced to catching up
with early implementers (Adler & Cole, 1993; Hayes, Wheelwright, & Clark, 1988; Porter, 1996;
Schonberger, 1982; Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990).
Toyota’s success with LP, for example, led to a substantial transfer of market share away
from U.S. manufacturers (Hall, 1983; Hayes et al., 1988; Schonberger, 1982; Womack et al.,
1990). Consequently, the decade of the 1980s was marked by shock, protectionism against
Japanese imports, and a radical reassessment of the role of operations in competitive strategy
(Hayes et al., 1988). LP critics Rinehart, Huxley, and Robertson (1997: 2) noted, “If there is one
non-debatable proposition in the early literature, it surely must be the claim that lean production
will be the standard manufacturing mode of the twenty-first century.”
Whereas it is generally agreed that LP has had a substantial positive effect on firm
competitiveness, the impact of LP on worker motivation remains at best paradoxical and at worst
poorly understood. Although jobs under LP bear considerable resemblance to those under
“scientific management,” which is generally thought of as being stifling to self-determined
motivation, the apparent paradox is that a by-product of LP has been worker behavior whose
form, direction, intensity, and duration has indicated motivation, broadly defined. It remains
unclear, however, how much of this motivated behavior results from intrinsic task motivation,
reflected, for example, in increased commitment to the task for its own sake (Brief & Aldag,
1977) rather than from an increase in compliance due to heightened management control (e.g.,
Rinehart, Huxley & Robertson, 1997; Sewell & Wilkinson, 1992).
4
Efforts to use generally accepted models of job design such as the socio-technical systems
approach (STS, e.g. Niepce & Molleman, 1998) or the Job Characteristics Model (JCM,
Hackman & Oldham, 1980) have not resulted in consistent explanations regarding the type of
motivation found in LP contexts (e.g., Adler & Cole, 1993; Berggren, 1994). Scholars such as
Adler and Cole (1993), Dankbaar (1997), Niepce and Molleman (1996, 1998), and Manz and
Stewart (1997) have analyzed the differences between LP and socio-technical systems theory and
discussed ways to improve LP by including principles inherent to STS. However, as we discuss
later, STS and in particular the JCM cannot be used to explain motivational outcomes under LP.
Our major purpose was to examine worker motivation under LP. Following Brief and
Aldag (1977), we define work motivation as a cognitive state experienced by individuals that
reflects inferences and attributions that individuals make about the origins of their actions.
Motivation results in an action or a behavioral outcome. Intrinsic motivation reflects a self-
fulfilling experience resulting from self -regulated value-congruent action that is largely
independent of external influence, causing commitment to performing a given task. Extrinsic
motivation reflects an instrumental experience resulting from a value-congruent or incongruent
action that is externally regulated, causing compliance to performing a given task. Finally, to
account for a fuller range of motivation, we add demotivation to behavioral outcomes that
individuals may demonstrate. Demotivation reflects dysfunctional behavior—unplanned for by
the formal organizational system—resulting from attempts to undermine externally -controlled
origins of one’s actions that are value-incongruent, causing conflict or resistance to performing a
given task (see Argyris, 1957). Unless otherwise specified, when referring to "motivation" or
"motivated behavior" we refer to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. "Motivational
outcomes" refer to both motivation and demotivation. Motivational outcomes are hypothesized to
be independent latent variables that occur in various degrees.
5
We propose a model of LP that theoretically accounts for motivational outcomes. This
model is partly based on the LP principles applied at NUMMI—the joint venture between GM
and Toyota—and on Hackman and Lawler's (1971) position that much of the variance in intrinsic
motivation can be explained by job design. When we refer to LP, we refer to a complete
implementation of LP and the overall main effect of job-design variables on motivation. A
complete implementation of LP is a sine qua non for the emergence of LP outcomes because the
LP job design variables are interrelated and reinforcing and—theoretically—have a combined,
cross-level configural effect on motivational outcomes (see Meyer, Tsui, & Hinings, 1993 for a
discussion of configural theory). By using configural theory, we explain the main effect of a
configuration of LP on motivational outcomes and not the independent main effects and partial
interactions of the various job-design elements comprising LP. Much of the disagreement in the
LP literature concerning motivation has resulted from comparisons between full and partial
implementations of LP. Hence, our goal is to use a configuration of LP in a gestalt or holistic
form to analyze how job design theoretically causes motivational outcomes.
Our objective was thus to explain a configuration of LP that results in motivation and to
determine the conditions under which workers would be committed to, comply, or conflict with
organizational objectives. We also examined the unique contextual factors that characterize LP
settings from other settings, and sought to explain why traditional industrial motivational models
may not be particularly suitable for the LP context. As will be evident, our model indicates that
when completely implemented, LP can theoretically cause sufficient motivation to reduce worker
alienation and resistance, which were the original goals of job enrichment programs (e.g.,
Hackman & Oldham, 1976). However, the potential of LP job design to cause motivation is
limited by excessive "leanness" and systematic underinvestment in worker self -determination that
may lead to worker resistance.
6
Motivation Under LP
Although the work performed under LP resembles that under scientific management,
implementation of LP changes several key dimensions of the job. When completely
implemented, employees under LP have, for example, an increased possibility to participate in
development of procedures and in problem solving. They receive more and better feedback
concerning their performance, become part of a team, and are more likely to have the training and
equipment needed to perform their jobs. Furthermore, job rotation and cross training allows for
an increase in task variety and task identity, and reduces the probability of repetitive strain
injuries (e.g., Adler 1993a; c.f. Adler, 1997).
As mentioned, such changes to job design under LP have been generally considered by
the operations management community to substantially increase motivation among workers, even
in the highly alienating environment of automobile assembly (e.g., Adler 1993a, 1993b, 1999;
Adler & Cole, 1993; de Treville, 1987; Hall, 1983; Hayes et al. , 1988; Kenney & Florida, 1988;
Imai, 1986; Monden, 1983; Schonberger, 1982; Suzaki, 1987, 1993; Womack et al., 1990). For
example, Groebner and Merz (1994) found that worker attitudes toward their jobs slightly
improved after implementation of JIT. Scott, Macomber, and Ettkin (1992) found an increase in
job satisfaction among workers with implementation of JIT. Haasen (1996) documented
increased motivation with LP implementation at the Opel Eisenach factory in the former German
Democratic Republic.
The majority of sociologists studying LP (e.g., Graham, 1993; Milkman, 1997; Rinehart
et al. , 1997; Sewell & Wilkinson, 1992) have disagreed with these conclusions. Whereas
acknowledging that workers under LP work harder and produce better quality than workers under
scientific management, these authors argue that much of the behavior indicative of motivation
7
observed under LP could stem from compliance or coercion rather than commitment. These
authors regard LP as perfected Taylorism that (a) maximizes management control over workers,
while (b) deceptively asserting that workers are empowered, (c) resulting in excessive stress and
worker injuries. Barker (1993) suggested that concertive control by team members forced
compliance with management goa ls such as a fast line speed more effectively than bureaucratic
controls , hence observed motivation would be extrinsic (see also Graham, 1993).
Babson (1993), Graham (1993), Milkman (1997), and Rinehart et al., (1997) described the
implementation of LP at three automobile assembly plants in North America. In these plants,
workers began with high motivation and expressed a belief that the changes occurring under LP
would make their jobs more interesting and rewarding. However, over time they became
alienated and reverted to resistance of management efforts. The above authors acknowledged that
many key aspects of lean production expected to make jobs more interesting—such as the ability
to make suggestions or stop the line if a problem occurred—were incompletely and inconsistently
implemented. Rinehart et al. (1997), however, suggested that the reduced motivation, resistance,
and alienation they observed under LP were caused by excessive leanness rather than from
incomplete implementation of LP. In these cases, implementation of LP resulted in an
excessively fast work pace, causing stress and repetitive strain injuries, thereby reducing worker
motivation and increasing demotivation (e.g., Adler, 1997; Babson, 1993; Landsbergis, Cahill, &
Schnall, 1999; Rinehart et al., 1997). Finally, motivation was negatively affected by poor general
work conditions and equity (e.g., salary) and employment security issues (c.f. , Herzberg, 1987).
The most commonly cited evidence of motivation under LP is the case of NUMMI (see
Adler, 1993a, 1993b; Adler & Cole, 1993). NUMMI was created at the former GM Fremont
plant, which had been closed because of quality and productivity problems. The same workers
rehired under NUMMI demonstrated high levels of work quality and productivity, and the great
8
majority expressed high job satisfaction. Even those workers who had specific complaints
concerning LP stated clearly that they preferred work under LP to the traditional automobile
assembly line production that LP replaced. Self-esteem and self-efficacy beliefs increased and
workers indicated an increased sense of meaningfulness and responsibility.
In a later article, Adler (1997) described how implementation problems with a new
automobile model introduction at the NUMMI plant resulted in increased production pressure.
This pressure affected job characteristics such as job rotation, and resulted in stress, an increased
rate of injuries, reduced worker commitment, and worker resistance, consistent with the position
that stress and injuries are common in LP implementations (e.g., Landsbergis et al., 1999).
In cases where LP has been partially implemented, or in which LP principles were put
into place but not maintained (e.g., because of poor support from first line supervisors, etc.),
workers demonstrated an increase in behavior indicating intrinsic motivation, and then a
subsequent decrease in such behavior (e.g., Adler, 1997; Graham, 1993; Milkman, 1997;
Rinehart et al. , 1997). When LP implementation had deteriorated workers were observed to revert
to resistance through activism and collective line stoppages, and to become more alienated (e.g.,
Adler, 1997; Graham, 1993; Milkman, 1997; Rinehart et al. , 1997). In other cases of incomplete
LP implementation, workers did increase their performance; however, this increase was because
of increased controls rather than increased intrinsic motivation (Rinehart et al. , 1997).
Proposition 1: Complete implementation (the ideal configuration of which is discussed
below) of LP will be positively related to worker motivation.
Proposition 2: Incomplete implementation of LP will be unrelated or negatively related to
intrinsic worker motivation and will be unrelated or positively related to extrinsic worker
motivation.
9
Proposition 3: Excessive leanness will be negatively related to worker motivation and
positively related to worker demotivation and worker injuries/stress.
An Interpretive Model of Motivation
The JCM and its underlying Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman
& Oldham, 1975) are freque ntly used to explain worker perceptions of job characteristics and the
motivating potential in a given job (Dunham, Aldag, & Brief, 1977; Steers & Mowday, 1977).
According to JCM theory (Hackman & Oldham (1975, 1976, 1980), changes in worker
perceptions of certain job characteristics (i.e., skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback) theoretically cause intrinsic worker motivation and related outcomes.
The following three critical psychological states theoretically mediate the relation between
worker perceptions of job characteristics and work motivation: (a) experienced meaningfulness,
which is caused by skill variety, task identity, and task significance; (b) experienced
responsibility, which is caused by autonomy (defined as freedom concerning choice of procedure
and timing); and (c) knowledge of the results of the work, caused by feedback. These causal
relationships are hypothesized to be moderated by the growth need strength of individuals
(Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Whereas worker perceptions of job characteristics are expected to impact intrinsic
motivation, the JCM does not explain the causal relationship between job design and motivation
in the LP context for several reasons:
1. The JCM does not account for the interpretive systems which mediate how
workers translate perceived job characteristics into intrinsic task motivation (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990; see also Adler, 1993a and Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978 for a discussion of the
10
impact of social mechanisms on the causal relationship between job characteristics and
motivation).
2. The JCM assumes that job characteristics impact motivation independently rather
than configurally (see Meyer et al., 1993).
3. The JCM does not include competence or self-efficacy belief—generally
recognized as important to intrinsic motivation (see Conger & Kanungo, 1988)—as a mediating
state (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Apart from being an important element of motivation (see
Bandura, 1977), self-efficacy is strongly linked to job performance and job satisfaction (Judge &
Bono, 2001; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), and may shield individuals from physical and
psychological job-related strain (Jex & Bliese, 1999).
4. The definition of intermediate outcomes as critical psychological states rather than
task assessments difficulties with measurement and linking the JCM theory to other relevant
literatures (Steers & Mowday, 1977; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
5. The job characteristics included in the JCM do not completely account for job
characteristics causally related to motivation in different contexts (see Dunham et al. , 1977;
Taber & Taylor, 1990).
6. The JCM does not explain the causal link between objective and perceived
changes to job characteristics (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
7. The individual differences assumed to moderate the effect of perceived job
characteristics on the intermediate outcomes may not apply to LP because LP can be
characterized as a "strong situation," that is, there are rigid behavioral and performance
norms/scripts, which may inhibit the predictive power of individual difference because of range
restriction (Mischel, 1977; Kenrick & Funder, 1988; Rousseau & Fried, 2001; Schneider, 1987).
8. The JCM does not consider the possibility that perceived job characteristics might
11
result in extrinsic motivation as well as intrinsic motivation.
9. Finally, the JCM has received mixed empirical support regarding the dimensions that
comprise it, the hypothesized mediating states, and prediction of performance outcomes, and the
multiplicative formula for job motivation potential (see Fried & Ferris, 1987; Griffin, 1991;
Kelly, 1992; Renn & Swiercz, 1993).
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) addressed many of the above issues in their interpretive
model of intrinsic motivation. In this model, objective interventions in a work situation affect
employee perceptions concerning environmental variables, including, but not limited to, job
design, reward systems, and leadership. Employee perceptions are translated into four task
assessments, also referred to as dimensions of motivation (Spreitzer, 1995): (a) meaning, which
refers to the fit between the purpose of the work and the individual's ideals, standards, beliefs,
and values; (b) competence, which refers to the individual's self-efficacy beliefs concerning the
task; (c) self-determination, which refers to the individual's perception that he or she has a choice
concerning some aspect of performance of the task; and (d) impact, which refers to the ability of
the individual to influence organizational outcomes.
According to the Thomas and Velthouse (1990) model, changes in motivational outcomes
are expected to result in changes to behavior concerning activity, concentration, initiative,
resiliency in the face of obstacles, and flexibility. Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason (1997) added job-
related strain—closely related to stress—as a possible outcome of increased intrinsic motivation
in their empirical testing of the Thomas and Velthouse model. The objective interventions are
assumed to affect not only employee perceptions concerning environmental variables, but also
the interpretive styles used by individuals to make task assessments and refer to causal
attributions, inferences, and the abilities of workers to envision successes rather than obstacles.
12
Our model is based on the Thomas and Velthouse model, but is adjusted for the context of
LP (see Figure 1). As discussed by Rousseau and Fried (2001), context operates as a boundary
condition for theoretical models. Doerr, Mitchell, Schriesheim, Freed, & Zhou (2002) noted that
focusing on a specific context facilitates the challenging task of integrating operations
management literature on flow lines with organizational behavior literature on motivation.
[insert Figure 1 about here]
A Model of LP
A Review of LP
LP arose out of the Toyota Production System, the manufacturing strategy developed by
Toyota in response to the inappropriateness of traditional automobile manufacturing practices to
the Japanese manufacturing environment (Monden, 1983). As a manufacturing strategy, LP
differs from scientific management in three primary ways: (a) in LP, the emphasis is on flow
rather than on output, which requires observing the operation holistically rather than as a set of
subsystems (Hopp & Spearman, 2000); (b) in LP, management shows respect toward workers
and their knowledge and skills; and (c) in LP, the emphasis is on being "lean," implying
increased efficiencies. In all other respects, LP closely resembles scientific management.
Workers under complete implementations of LP have been observed to change their
behavior , demonstrating such outcomes as increases in activity, flexibility, concentration,
initiative, and resiliency in the face of obstacles (e.g., Adler, 1993a, 1997; Hall, 1983; Hayes et
al. 1988; Monden, 1983; Schonberger, 1982; Suzaki, 1987; Womack et al., 1990). Increases in
activity and concentration could result from either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, but initiative,
resiliency, and flexibility are expected to arise only from intrinsic motivation (see Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990), which as we argue below requires full implementation of LP.
13
Objective Changes to Production Systems Under LP
Improving flow. Rather than holding inventories to buffer against processing variability,
LP emphasizes the elimination of such variability to permit work to flow smoothly through the
factory (Hopp & Spearman, 2000; Monden, 1983; Womack et al., 1990). As quality problems,
machine downtime, long setup times, and line imbalances are eliminated, fewer buffer
inventories are required to maintain a given level of output. Much of the reduction in variability
stems from management, rather than from worker initiative, for example, managing the quality of
incoming materials from suppliers, increasing the manufacturability of the product design, and
leveling the production schedule. Such management actions are usually experienced as
empowering by workers (Adler, 1993a).
Workers having trouble completing work within a production cycle have access to an
“andon” cord they can pull to obtain immediate help from the supervisor or team leader.
Information on the number of andon pulls originating at each workstation gives management
information concerning bottlenecks and other production problems. When the andon is pulled an
attempt is made to resolve the problem before the end of the production cycle, otherwise, the
production line stops as long as is required to permit problem resolution. Paradoxically, giving
workers authority to stop the line has long term positive effect on flow.
One of the radical concepts of LP inventory reduction concerns reducing inventories so
that production problems are exposed (Hall, 1983; Schonberger, 1982), for example, by trading
output for process feedback both for workers and management (Suri & de Treville, 1986). Such
increased feedback results from the increased interdependencies between workers. This increased
feedback is generally expected to increase motivation (e.g., Monden, 1983; Schonberger, 1982),
but the increased interdependencies are expected to reduce motivation due to reduced autonomy
(e.g., Klein, 1989).
14
The emphasis on flow also requires a move from a process to a product layout. A product
layout facilitates teamwork and increases the ability of workers to see how their task fits into the
complete product. Because a product layout means that subsequent operations are located next to
each other, the down stream operation is considered as the customer of the upstream operation,
increasing both feedback and interdependency, which as we discuss later have positive
psychological benefits for workers.
A key aspect of variability reduction concerns standardization. Standardization under LP
requires that jobs be performed according to standard operating procedures (SOPs). The objective
of standardization is to reduce process variability and to enhance learning (Edelson & Bennett,
1998). The relationship between standardization and motivation has been controversial, as we
discuss later.
Proposition 4: Flow-based production is positively related to production efficiencies and
worker interdependencies.
Respect for workers. LP recognizes the importance of worker skill and knowledge to
competitiveness. This recognition is demonstrated by willingness to invest in developing workers'
capabilities and by showing respect for workers. Workers are given the right to participate in
development of procedures and in resolving production problems, and are given responsibility for
quality and preventive maintenance in a radical departure from scientific management. Respect
has also been demonstrated by providing parking lots and cafeterias shared by management and
workers, by management wearing the same uniforms as workers, providing business cards for
workers, and so forth (Adler, 1993a; Graham, 1993; Monden, 1983). As discussed previously,
lack of equity in the work environment can be demotivating, following a well-established line of
findings in equity theory (see Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). Thus, respect for workers should increase
worker commitment to organizational goals.
15
Proposition 5: Respect for workers will be positively correlated to intrinsic task
motivation.
Leanness. The objective of LP is to improve flow while continuously reducing the
resources required for production. Production areas are frequently understaffed. It is typical in LP
to make fewer resources available than required to encourage creativity and problem-solving
behavior. Lean production proponents claim that limiting resources creates challenging goals,
which increases worker motivation. This is consistent with a human relations view of motivation,
suggesting that staffing should be slightly less than the amount required so that employees are
exposed to opportunities to utilize not only their motoric, but also their cognitive and conative
skills (Argyris, 1964).
Lean production opponents disagree with the above reasoning, noting that insufficient
resources limit workers' capacity to engage in problem-solving activities, and claiming that the
resulting production pressure causes stress, control, and compliance. As noted, excessive leanness
has been observed to result in increased injuries, resistance in the form of collective andon pulls,
and severe limitations on worker freedom.
Behavioral economists would refer to such a continual reduction of resources as a
reduction in organizational slack (Cyert & March, 1992; Simon, 1976)—slack referring to extra
resources maintained in the organization that support flexibility and creativity. The existence of
organizational slack has an apparently contradictory effect on motivation and creativity. Whereas
slack is required for creativity, its presence serves as a relaxing agent in the process of searching
for new ideas, encouraging individuals to reduce the effort that they put into the search process
(Bourgeois, 1981; Simon, 1976). This contradictory effect is observed in LP. The continual
reduction of resources and understaffing causes intensive search behavior, but the excessive
16
scarcity of resources implies that workers do not have the time or energy to invest in creative
problem-solving (Lawson, 2001).
The concept of double-loop learning (Argyris, 1994) is useful in explaining part of the
apparent contradiction. Lean organizations are forced to be very efficient in searching for faster
and leaner ways to get a given task done (i.e., single-loop learning), but they have little capacity
for double-loop learning (i.e., examining the governing variables of a system). Much of the
learning required of workers under lean production is expected to be single loop, which is
appropriate for repetitive and simple situations. However, double -loop learning is required for the
organization to be able to adapt to a changing environment. Thus, excessive leanness would be
expected to reduce the organization's adaptive ability, as well as the workers' ability to truly
participate in the development of the organization over time. Leanness, therefore, is expected to
result in an efficient but potentially inflexible organization and lack of organizational slack, in
restricting workers to single-loop learning, might be expected to limit intrinsic motivation.
Proposition 6: Removal of organizational slack will be positively related to worker
creativity and intrinsic motivation.
Proposition 7: Excessive leanness will be negatively related to worker learning and
organizational adaptation.
A challenge resulting from the above is determining the point at which an organization
becomes excessively lean. Obviously, it would be difficult to propose a “point of optimization”
given the unique contextual factors that would be present in various organizations. However, it is
clear that the workers and supervisors would have to determine the “points of optimization” in
the various organizational functions by engaging in frequent and open discussions, questioning
current practices, and suggesting improvements, which are all principles associated with LP.
17
Changes to Worker Perceptions of Job Characteristics Under LP
The objective changes to the production environment occurring under LP affect worker
perceptions of the characteristics of their job. We chose to be inclusive rather than parsimonious
in specifying perceived job characteristics at this stage of model development. Because we are
proposing a holistic implementation of LP, we do not draw specific (i.e., independent main
effects) propositions.
Task significance and task identity. Individual tasks in automobile assembly are seldom
very meaningful. With cycle times of 60 seconds, tasks tend to be routine and repetitive. Under
LP, however, the emphasis on flow makes it easier for an employee to relate his or her 60
seconds of input to the whole car. This is demonstrated in Adler's (1993a) description of
NUMMI, in which an employee refers to himself as a "grunt," yet indicates considerable pride in
his participation in having built a high quality car. In their empirical study of motivation under
LP, Groebner and Merz (1994) found an increase in task identity after implementation of LP.
Specific LP principles that cause increases in task significance and identity include inventory
removal, lot size reduction, product layout, and—somewhat surprisingly—order and cleanliness
(e.g., Flynn, Sakakibara & Schroeder, 1995; Hayes, 1981).
Challenge (including skill variety). Workers are cross-trained and rotate between jobs
under complete implementation of LP. LP enthusiasts (e.g., Womack et al., 1990) refer to such
cross training as multiskilling, whereas LP critics (e.g., Rinehart et al., 1997) use the term multi-
tasking to indicate that the new skills remain tedious and repetitive, and that cycle times remain
short. It appears from practice that the main benefit of job rotation, resulting from cross training,
is safety-related. Job rotation has been clearly demonstrated to reduce repetitive strain injuries
(e.g., Landsbergis et al., 1999). There is little evidence that cross training makes the job itself
more challenging.
18
There is, however, evidence even from LP critics that jobs under LP require a higher level
of problem-solving ability, related, for example, to participation, and to responsibility for quality
and preventive maintenance. This problem solving has been observed by LP enthusiasts and
critics alike (e.g., Adler, 1993a; Monden, 1983; Rinehart et al., 1997; Womack et al. 1990) to
make the job more challenging and intellectually stimulating, although to a smaller degree than
under STS.
One source of challenge concerns keeping up with the production line. Under scientific
management, goals are output-based rather than flow-based, with historically little emphasis on
quality. Under LP, however, the goal of the worker is to complete his or her tasks according to
specifications while the piece being worked is in the worker's station. This goal is not only
specific but also challenging, hence should increase motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002), as we
discuss below. The reduction of inventory means that missing this goal results in stopping the
line (Schultz, Juran, Boudreau, McClain, and Thomas, 1998). If the worker has difficulties in
meeting this goal, he or she can use the andon system to request assistance, hence worker
acceptance of the goal of completing the task might be expected to increase. If a workstation is
consistently a bottleneck, then LP calls for tasks to be reassigned—often by the group of workers
themselves—so that no worker will be facing an impossible task (Doerr et al., 2002). The
possibility of obtaining assistance or of redistributing tasks increases the ability of the worker to
estimate the level of challenge in a given goal, increasing worker acceptance of goals (Latham &
Yukl, 1975). If, however, the speed of the line is excessive, or if inventory is removed from the
production line at a rate that results in excessive line stoppages, then worker acceptance of the
goal of completing the task within the cycle should decrease.
Therefore, although the task itself does not increase substantially in challenge, the overall
job of the worker can become more challenging as a result of the increased problem-solving and
19
the specific, challenging goals combined with the support systems to bring goals just within reach
of the employee. However, if the speed of the line or the rate of buffer inventory removal is
excessive (i.e., excessive leanness), or if the worker does not participate in problem-solving
because of lack of time, lack of training, or lack of management commitment to worker
involvement, then compliance rather than commitment is expected to result.
Feedback. Line stoppages resulting from inventory reductions, andon systems, quality
and downtime tracking systems, responses to worker suggestions, and increased support all
represent sources of feedback for workers and management that are unavailable under scientific
management. Apart from the motivation benefits discussed below, this feedback helps regulate
the level of leanness appropriate to the organization.
Feedback arises from the process itself, as a result of interdependencies between workers,
and from teamwork. This feedback is primarily competence-related rather than evaluative (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). LP is designed to maximize the worker’s ability to self -monitor, which,
following Manz’s propositions (1986), should shift the locus of control inward, which in turn
encourages internalization of company goals, objectives, and procedures (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Workers receiving feedback—preferably through self-monitoring, but also from other
sources—are thus expected to have a better understanding of their level of competence, which
leads to self-efficacy when competence is high, and to improvement efforts and eventual
increased self-efficacy when deficiencies in competence are revealed. Feedback has been found
to influence self-efficacy when it is related to absolute versus relative performance (Johnson,
Turban, Pieper, & Ng, 1996). Feedback concerning the process being used has been found to
have a greater impact on performance and other outcomes than simple outcome feedback (Earley,
Northcraft, & Lee, 1990).
20
Locke (1968) found that goals mediated the relationship between feedback and
motivation, hence the specific, challenging goals generated by LP discussed in the previous
section would be expected to increase the impact of LP feedback on motivation. However,
feedback systems can increase management control, resulting in compliance rather than
commitment if there is lack of trust between management and workers (e.g., Argyris, 1957).
Self-determination. Some level of self-determination is required for intrinsic motivation
(deCharms, 1968). When workers feel that they have some choice in initiating and regulating
their actions on the job they may perceive that their job is characterized by self-determination.
Note that a limited choice—as in the context of LP—has been found to be more motivating than a
great amount of choice (see Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Job design theory has traditionally focused
on autonomy rather than on self-determination. Autonomy has been defined as freedom regarding
timing and procedures used to carry the task (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), which traditionally is
seen as lacking in LP. As is evident, autonomy and self-determination are both restricted under
LP; however, we do not see the former as defined by Hackman and Oldham as necessary
conditions for motivation and do see ample opportunities for the latter in LP.
In the operations management literature, a different definition of autonomy than that in
the job design literature is used, and includes elements such as discretion, decision-making
authority, and responsibility (e.g., Chase, Acquilano, and Jacobs, 2001; Cheser, 1998;
Rungtusanatham, 2001). Merriam-Webster (1995) defined autonomy as “the quality or state of
being self-governing; especially: the right of self-government; self -directing freedom and
especially moral independence.” The philosopher Kant saw autonomy as self-government
stemming from morality, with morality arising from knowledge and self-discipline (Schneewind,
1998). Conger and Kanungo (1988) noted that an appropriate level of authority, discretion,
formalization, and rule structure is a requirement for worker empowerment, which we see as
21
consistent with the concept of self-government. Adler (1993b, 1996) suggested that bureaucracy,
standardization, and formalization could be either enabling (i.e., empowering) or controlling.
Following SOPs is not incompatible with self-government. A worker who is committed to
developing and following SOPs may earn the right of self-government and experience greater
freedom from supervision. Furthermore, as is discussed in the following section, participation in
improving outcomes and designing SOPs can be viewed as self-governing behavior. Therefore,
we suggest that standardization and self-determination are not mutually exclusive.
There are many ways to give a worker a sense of choice outside of task procedures. Deci,
Connell, and Ryan (1989) found that managers who listened to and acknowledged subordinates'
concerns, provided feedback as appropriate and encouraged subordinates to actively participate in
problem-solving, substantially increased the subordinates perception of self-determination in
spite of the fact that subordinates were limited in demonstrating behavior. Other examples
include giving workers some degree of choice concerning their work environment (Davenport,
Thomas, & Cantrell, 2002), giving workers a budget to make improvements in their workplace
(Adler, 1993a), and allowing teams of workers to find ways of reallocating tasks to make the
work more comfortable (Rinehart et al., 1997).
If management, however, uses the above initiatives merely to reduce the headcount and
increase workload, strong employee resistance and reduced sense of self-determination could
result. One common complaint among workers under LP is that much of the gains of worker
improvement suggestions are reaped by management (Graham, 1993; Rinehart et al. 1997; see
also Argyris, 1964). Other areas of self-determination mentioned by workers in the LP literature
include freedom to take care of personal needs, for example, the ability to take washroom breaks,
work breaks, and receive telephone messages during working hours. Finally, LP literature
suggests that workers under LP tend to lack self-determination concerning safety and ergonomics
22
(Adler, 1997; Landsbergis et al., 1999). Whereas it appears that some level of self-determination
is feasible under LP, much of the LP literature indicates a systematic underinvestment in self -
determination in the areas mentioned.
Interdependence. Inventory reduction and the emphasis on flow mean a high level of
interdependence between workers under LP. Such interdependence is generally considered to
reduce motivation due to reduction in autonomy by theories such as STS and the JCM. Under
STS, for example, buffer inventories are held between workstations and teams to minimize
interdependence. Whether interdependence is interpreted as intrinsically motivating because it
supports responsibility and feedback that can be used to improve the production process and
request support from management, or whether interdependence is interpreted as an increase in
control, depends to a large extent on the interpretation systems used by the workers, as discussed
later in the paper.
Task and goal clarity. Conger and Kanungo (1988) noted that lack of task and goal
clarity limits worker empowerment. The emphasis on flow under LP, combined with the
requirement that workers perform their tasks according to SOPs, results in a substantial increase
in task and goal clarity. Whereas under scientific management tasks are decoupled, under LP the
task and goal of each worker is to maintain the flow.
Participation. Lack of worker participation in decisions impacting job performance
hinders worker empowerment (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Although workers under LP have no
freedom to choose the procedures for a task, they are expected to participate in the development
and revision of such procedures and in resolving problems that arise (Imai, 1986). Also, SOPs are
most effective when created and maintained by workers (Edelson & Bennett, 1998). Participation
in task design may compensate for reduced freedom in task execution (Klein, 1989, 1991), reduce
worker alienation (Adler, 1993a), and increase self -determination.
23
Much worker involvement under LP comes through suggestion systems. Management is
expected to train workers in how to make suggestions, respond rapidly to suggestions, implement
as many suggestions as possible, and reward suggestions that are implemented (Imai, 1986;
Monden, 1983). Most suggestions are made by teams, rather than by individual workers (Imai,
1986). Monden (1983) stated that in 1980, 48,757 Toyota workers made 859,039 suggestions ,
94% of which were implemented. Adler and Cole (1993) observed 90% participation in the
suggestion program at NUMMI in 1991, with an average of 5 suggestions per worker, and an
acceptance rate of over 80%.
Partial implementations of LP have been observed to demonstrate considerably lower
rates of suggestions and acceptance (Milkman, 1997; Rinehart et al., 1997). Hackman and
Wageman (1995) agreed that giving workers a chance to participate in the development of SOPs
could compensate for loss of freedom in how to perform the task, but expressed concern that in
their experience, few employees appeared to have a chance to participate in teams making the
suggestions.
Support. Conger and Kanungo (1988) suggest that lack of training, technical support, and
provision of necessary resources hinders worker empowerment. Under LP, the emphasis on flow
appears to increase the amount of support available to workers. When flow is impeded, LP calls
for elimination of the impedance, which implies that when a worker faces an obstacle to meeting
his or her flow-based goals, the support and resources required to eliminate such obstacles are
readily available (see Adler, 1993a). LP principles leading to a worker perception of support
include authority to stop the production line through the andon system, leveling of the production
schedule, design for manufacturing and assembly, supplier management, and—somewhat
paradoxically—standardization, as will be discussed below. There are several examples in the LP
literature where schedule variability, design problems, or supplier problems disrupted production,
24
apparently causing a decrease in motivation among employees (e.g., Adler, 1997; Milkman,
1997; Rinehart et al. 1997).
The andon cord has generally been considered as a source of support, although some LP
critics (e.g., Sewell & Wilkinson, 1992) see the andon system as a way to publicly embarrass
workers not able to complete their work before the end of the cycle and to collect information
concerning the number of andon pulls to increase management control (Graham, 1993). Most
complaints about the andon cord, though, stem from supervisors discouraging its use (Milkman,
1997) , suggesting an incomplete implementation of LP.
Standardization. Although job design theory sees standardization only in terms of
management control, LP theory suggests that the access to reliable SOPs that comes from
standardization is empowering to workers (Adler, 1993a, 1993b; Imai, 1986; Monden, 1983;
Suzaki, 1987). Deci et al. (1989) attempted to measure “perceived freedom on the job” in an
empirical study of self-determination, but the internal consistency of the factor was inadequate
because some respondents interpreted the items from that factor as autonomy, whereas others
perceived them as lack of support. Berggren (1994) described lack of accurate SOPs as a lack of
support. Barker (1993) described teams requiring their members to follow SOPs. Adler and Cole
(1993) referred to lack of accurate SOPs as abandonment rather than empowerment. Other
authors have observed an increase in empowerment—implying self-efficacy and intrinsic
motivation—in companies standardizing processes in the context of ISO 9000 certification (Rao,
Ragu-Nathan & Solis, 1997). SOPs would also imply improving means-efficacy, which has
positive implications to performance and motivation (see Eden & Sulimani, 2002).
Responsibility. Under LP, workers are given responsibility for quality and preventive
maintenance. This increased responsibility is generally considered by LP proponents and critics
alike to increase worker commitment.
25
A Configuration of LP Job Characteristics
According to traditional work motivation theories such as the JCM, job characteristics
have independent main effects—and are tested as such—on motivation, although some
interaction between the job characteristics is implicitly assumed. Following Meyer et al. (1993),
our model assumes that job characteristics have a configural effect on motivational outcomes,
which should increase the predictive power of the model (for an example of increasing predictive
power see Smith & Foti, 1998). As an example, task significanc e, goal clarity, challenge,
feedback, and responsibility would independently be expected to increase commitment. If,
however, the level of challenge is too high—as in cases of extreme leanness—then the
significance of the task, the clarity of the goal, the feedback, and the responsibility might
combine with the excessive challenge to cause resistance. Likewise, the effect of interdependence
on motivational outcomes is undergirded by job characteristics such as support, and as mentioned
earlier, whether standardization is motivating depends on worker participation in development of
standards. As is evident, the characteristics are tightly interwoven and cannot have positive
motivational effects in isolation. Their reciprocal positive interaction cannot be dismantled. When
the characteristics are used configurally, they will theoretically have a powerful motivational
effect on workers. (See also Shah & Ward, in press).
Changes to Interpretive Systems Under LP
Following Thomas and Velthouse (1990), interpretive styles play an important role in
transforming data from interventions and external events into intrinsic, extrinsic , or demotivation.
Interpretive systems refer to causal attributions and inferences made by employees, how
employees evaluate their performance, and how they envision future events. This perspective
complements the literature on social cognition regarding the effect of expectations on information
processing, and the resulting inferences and attributions that are made about events (see Fiske &
26
Taylor, 1991; Gilbert & Malone, 1995). Thus, whether several of the objective changes to the
production system made under LP are perceived by workers as empowering or controlling
depends on the interpretive systems used by the workers.
Under LP, management is often observed to actively attempt to influence workers'
interpretive systems. Implementation of the concept of kaizen—the continuous improvement
philosophy that is foundational to LP—requires a fundamental shift in interpretive systems.
Training in kaizen emphasizes that problems usually arise from production obstacles rather than
worker error. Instead of assigning blame, common to scientific management, the response of LP
to an error is to attempt to eliminate the root cause (see Imai, 1986). LP implementation usually
entails substantial training in the kaizen philosophy. Successful implementation of the kaizen
philosophy causes workers to make external, transient, and local attributions concerning
production problems. The concept of continuous improvement moves employees away from
absolutistic standards: success, apart from improving self-efficacy beliefs (see Bandura, 1977),
inspires employees to continually set higher goals, and failure inspires employees to eliminate the
abovementioned root cause.
A second influence on interpretive systems comes from the social identification that is
encouraged under LP. Ashforth and Mael (1989: 26) suggested that social identification with a
group would be expected to increase support for and commitment to that group, and might
encourage “internalization of, and adherence to, group values and norms,” thus triggering
behavior relevant to the reinforcement of the desired identity. Salancik & Pfeffer (1978) argued
that social mechanisms mediate the causal relationship between job characteristics and
motivation (see also Adler, 1993a). In other words, identification with the company, plant, or
team might be expected to increase the likelihood that LP job characteristics would result in
commitment rather than compliance or conflict.
27
Under LP, workers receive extensive training to understand the objectives of lean
production and their positive effect on job characteristics (Graham, 1993; Milkman, 1997;
Rinehart et al. , 1997). This training is often designed to give workers a vision of themselves as
important players in a successful company. Other LP principles that result in social identity
include the interaction with others that arises from teamwork, a product layout, transfer of
responsibility for quality and preventive maintenance, and participation. Treating workers in a
dignified and respectful way by providing parking lots and cafeterias shared by management and
workers, by management wearing the same uniforms as workers, providing business cards for
workers appear to cause an increase in social identity, and a reduction in divisions between
workers and managers—in complete implementations of LP (Adler, 1993b)—but were not able
to maintain social identity in cases where LP was only partially implemented (Milkman, 1997;
Rinehart et al. 1997).
Whereas such efforts to change interpretive systems do appear to impact task assessments,
such an impact only succeeds if the promises are backed up by actual changes to job
characteristics rather than unmet promises, thus requiring the full backing of management (see
Rogers, Hunter, & Rogers, 1993). Again, total implementation of lean production is required,
otherwise workers may see management as being manipulative and untrustworthy (Graham,
1993; Milkman, 1997; Rinehart et al., 1997).
Motivational Outcomes Under Lean Production
When the complete constellation of LP job characteristics is in place, an increase in each
of the four task assessments—competence, impact, self-determination, and meaning—is
theoretically possible. Many of the job characteristics, however, can result in lower task
assessments due to a perception of increased management control of worker behavior resulting in
extrinsic or demotivation. Whether LP job characteristics are seen as intrinsically or extrinsically
28
motivating is substantially influenced by the interpretive systems used by employees. Hence, the
major investment in training and social identity commonly observed in LP may play a key role in
the motivational outcomes. Even in cases where interpretive systems have been changed to
reflect the LP philosophy, it is likely that some employees will continue to perceive certain LP
job characteristics as controlling.
In cases where LP has been completely implemented and interpretive systems have been
adjusted, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation might be limited by excessive leanness. Whereas
removal of organizational slack is expected to increase activity, concentration, and initiative
concerning simple and repetitive problems, too little slack is expected to hinder initiative
concerning complex and non-routine problems. Too little slack would especially limit the
organization’s ability to adapt to a changing environment, as well as resilience and flexibility.
Excessive leanness has also been observed in practice to result in problems concerning safety,
ergonomics, and basic personal freedoms of the worker, causing a reduction in self-
determination. Thus, as depicted in the model, excessive leanness is expected to moderate the
relation between task assessments and motivational outcomes.
Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research
Is LP motivating? Over two decades after the arrival of LP, this question has not been
resolved. Following the insights of Hackman and Lawler (1971), and Hackman and Oldham
(1975) that job characteristics explain much of work motivation, we have explored the
relationship between job characteristics and motivation in the context of lean production. Various
scholars, for example, Steers and Mowday (1977), Brief and Aldag (1978), Dunham et al. ,
(1977), Thomas and Velthouse (1990), and Meyer et al. (1993) have indicated that the JCM in its
29
original form might not explain all types of motivation in all contexts, suggesting several
adjustments to the model.
In order to examine the phenomenon of motivation in LP, we extended the JCM, and the
Thomas and Velthouse interpretive model of intrinsic motivation, to include objective
interventions and changes to interpretive systems occurring under LP. We extended the set of
JCM job characteristics to include job characteristics that had been observed to potentially affect
motivation under LP. Rather than the independent main effects assumed by the JCM, we
proposed that the job characteristics affect a range of motivational outcomes configurally.
We demonstrated that a complete constellation of LP job characteristics, when combined
with LP interpretive systems , is theoretically capable of causing intrinsic motivation. The model
also gives insights, however, into some of the limitations concerning motivation in LP. First, the
emphasis on leanness reduces organizational slack, which then might limit double-loop learning
while encouraging single-loop learning. Double-loop learning is required if workers are to have
real impact on the company, hence leanness itself might create an upper bound on the ability of
LP job design to intrinsically motivate workers (see Rinehart et al. , 1997). Second, the lack of
provision within LP job design for worker self -determination may cause workers to perceive that
they have inadequate choice in their jobs. We have defined safety, ergonomics, the possibility to
share in the gains of improvement efforts, and rights concerning personal breaks as dimensions of
self-determination, suggesting that provision for these items might increase the total effect of LP
job design on intrinsic motivation. Finally, the job characteristics can be perceived as either
intrinsically motivating or extrinsically motivating/controlling. Even when interpretive systems
are functioning “well,” there will be workers who perceive themselves in conflict or as being
controlled rather than being committed.
30
Context, which includes organizational characteristics, type of work performed, external
factors, and so forth, affects what range of variability can potentially be observed (Rousseau &
Fried, 2001). How a phenomenon is explained, and the relations between sets of independent and
dependent factors depends on context. For this reason, we have limited our model to the context
of LP.
The model suggests data gathering at the individual, group, and at the plant level of
analysis (Klein, Dansereau & Hall, 1994). At the individual level, validation of the model
suggests linking individual perceptions of job characteristics and task assessments to individual-
level performance. In the event that job-characteristic effects are largely homogenous, group-
based job-characteristic perceptions could be linked to group-based outcomes measures. The
effects of job characteristics should be tested at the plant level of analysis regarding the degree to
which the job characteristics lead to plant performance and hence plant competitiveness.
The impact of leader behavior on worker motivation was not explicitly discussed as it was
beyond the scope of this paper. As mentioned by Conger and Kanungo (1988) and Thomas and
Velthouse (1990), leader behavior plays an important role in worker mot ivation. Apart from
direct motivational effects, a leader’s behavior compensates for deficiencies in formal
organizational systems (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). Thus, including linkages to leader behavior
may enhance the predictive power of the model.
Finally, we realize that our model of motivation may be bounded by the cultural context
under which it has been investigated. For example, self-determination or empowerment needs
differ as a function of the degree of collectivism and power differentials in a culture (see Iyengar
& Lepper, 1999; Hofstede, 2001; Robert, Probst, Martocchio, Drasgow & Lawler, 2000). Thus,
future testing of the model should take into account national culture factors that may moderate
the causal relations of the model.
31
References
Adler, P. S. 1993a. The new “learning bureaucracy”: New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. In
Barry M. Staw and Larry L. Cummings (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Adler, P. S. 1993b. Time-and-Motion Regained. Harvard Business Review, 71: 97-108.
Adler, P. S. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41: 61-89.
Adler, P. S. 1997. Ergonomics, employee involvement, and the Toyota production system: A
case study of NUMMI's 1993 model introduction. Industrial & Labor Relations Review,
50: 416-437.
Adler, P. S. 1999. Building better bureaucracies. Academy of Management Executive, 13 (4):
36-49.
Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. 1993. Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan
Management Review, Spring: 85-94.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. 1999. Old friends, new faces: motivation research in the 1990s.
Journal of Management , 25: 231-292.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. 2002 Distance and leadership: A review and a proposed theory. The
Leadership Quarterly: An International Journal of Political, Social and Behavioral
Science, 13 : 673-704.
Argyris, C. 1957. Personality and organization: The conflict between system and individual.
New York: Harper & Row.
Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
32
Argyris, C. 1994. On organizational learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Ashforth, B. E. , & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review , 14: 20-39.
Babson, S. 1993. Lean or mean: The MIT model and LP at Mazda. Labor Studies Journal, 18
(2): 3-25.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barker, J. R. 1993. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 38: 408-437
Berggren, C. 1994. NUMMI vs. Uddevalla. Sloan Management Review, Winter: 37-49.
Bourgeois, L. J. 1981. On the measurement of organizational slack. AMR, 6: 29-39.
Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. 1977. The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Toward conceptual clarity.
Academy of Management Review, 2: 496-500.
Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. 1978. The job characteristic inventory: An examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 21: 659-670.
Chase, R. B., Aquilano, N. J., & Jacobs, F. Robert. 2001. Operations Management for
Competitive Advantage--9th Edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Cheser, R. N. 1998. The effect of Japanese kaizen on employee motivation in u.s. manufacturing.
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 6 (3): 197-217.
Conger, J. A. , & Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13: 471-482.
Cyert, R. M. , & March, J. G. 1992. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. 2nd edition, Oxford:
Blackwell.
Dankbaar, B. 1997. LP: Denial, confirmation, or extension of sociotechnical systems design?
Human Relations , 50: 567-583.
33
Davenport, T. H., Thomas, R. J., & Cantrell, S. 2002. The mysterious art and science of
knowledge -worker performance. Sloan Management Review , 44 (1): 23-30.
deCharms, R. 1968. Personal causation, New York: Academic Press.
de Treville, S. (1987) Disruption, Learning, and System Improvement in Just-in-Time
Manufacturing . Dissertation Abstracts International, (University Microfilms No.
8717014).
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 74: 580-590.
Deci, E. L. , & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4): 227-269.
Doerr, K. H., Mitchell, T. R., Schriesheim, C. A., Freed, T., & Zhou, X. 2002. Heterogeneity and
variability in the context of flow lines. Academy of Management Review, 27: 594-607.
Dunham, R. B., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. 1977. Dimensionality of task design as measure by
the job diagnostic survey. Academy of Management Journal, 20: 209-223.
Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. 1990. Impact of process and outcome
feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 33: 87-105.
Edelson, N. M. , & Bennett, C. L. 1998. Process Discipline: How to Maximize Profitability and
Quality Through Manufacturing Consistency. New York: Quality Resources.
Eden, D., & Sulimani, R. 2002. Pygmalion training made effective: Greater mastery through
augmentation of self-efficacy and means -efficacy. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino
(Eds.) Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead (pp. 287-308).
Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
34
Flynn, B. B., Sakakibara, S., & Schroeder, R. G. 1995. Relationship between JIT and TQM:
Practices and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1325-1360.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. 1987. The validity of the job characteristics model : A review and
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. 1995. The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 21-
38.
Graham, L.. 1993. Inside a Japanese transplant: A critical perspective. Work and Occupations ,
20: 147-143.
Griffin, R. W. 1991. Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors:
A long-term perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 425-435.
Groebner, D. F. , & Merz, C. M. 1994. The impact of implementing JIT on employees' job
attitudes. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 14: 26-37.
Haasen, A. 1996. Open Eisenach GMBH – Creating a high-productivity workplace.
Organizational Dynamics , Spring: 80-85.
Hackman J. R., Lawler E. E. III. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 55: 259-286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. 1975. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60: 159-170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R.. 1995. Total Quality Management: Empirical, Conceptual, and
Practical Issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 309-342. (Reprinted from The
35
Quality Movement & Organization Theory. pp. 23-48, by R. E. Cole, & R. W. Scott,
Eds., 2000, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).
Hall, R. W. 1983. Zero Inventories. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Hayes, R. H. 1981. Why Japanese factories work. Harvard Business Review, 59: (4): 57-65.
Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C., & Clark, K.B. 1988. Dynamic manufacturing: Creating the
learning organization. New York: Free Press.
Herzberg, F. 1987. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review,
Sept./Oct., 109-120.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hopp, W. J., & Spearman, M. L. 2000. Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing
Management, 2nd edition, Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Imai, M. 1986. KAIZEN. New York: Random House.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. 1999. Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 349-366.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. 2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of
a good thing?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 995-1006.
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. 1999. Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: A multilevel study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 349-361.
Johnson, D. S., Turban, D. B., Pieper, K. F., & Ng, Y. M. 1996. Exploring the role of normative -
and performance-based feedba ck in motivational processes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology , 26: 973-992.
36
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satis faction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80-92.
Kelly, J. 1992. Does job re-design theory explain job re-design outcomes? Human Relations , 45:
753-774.
Kenney, M., & Florida, R. 1988. Beyond mass production: Production and the labor process in
Japan. Politics and Society, 16 (1): 121-158.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Funder, D. C. 1988. Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-
situation debate. American Psychologist, 43(1), 23-34.
Klein, J. A. 1989. The human costs of manufacturing reform. Harvard Business Review, 67 (2):
60-64.
Klein, J. A. 1991. A reexamination of autonomy in light of new manufacturing practices. Human
Relations, 44 (1): 21-38.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., and Hall, R. J. 1994. Levels issues in the ory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.
Landsbergis, P. A., Cahill, J., & Schnall, P. 1999. The impact of LP and related new systems of
work organization on worker health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4:
108-130.
Latham, G. P., and Yukl, G. A. 1975. A review of research on the application of goal-setting in
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 824-845.
Lawson, M.B. 2001. In Praise of Slack: Time is of the Essence. Academy of Management
Executive, 15 (3): 125-135.
Locke, E. A. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentive. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance , 3: 157-189.
37
Locke, E. A., and Latham, P. G. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57: 705-717.
Manz, C. C. 1986. Self-Leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11: 585-600.
Manz, C. C., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Attaining flexible stability by integrating Total Quality
Management and socio-technical systems theory. Organization Science, 8: 59-70.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition. 1995. Springfield, MA: Merriam-
Webster, inc.
Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. 1993. Configurational approaches to organizational
analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1175-1195.
Milkman, R.. 1997. Farewell to the Factory: Auto Workers in the Late Twentieth Century,
Berkeley; University of Ca lifornia Press.
Mischel, W. 1977. The interaction of person and situation. In Magnusson, D., & Endler, D.
(Eds.), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology (pp.
333-352). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Monden, Y. 1983. Toyota Production System. Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering and
Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Niepce, W. , & Molleman, E. 1996. A case study: Characteristics of work organization in LP and
sociotechnical systems. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 16: 77-91.
Niepce, W. , & Molleman, E. 1998. Work design issues in LP from a sociotechnical systems
perspective: Neo-Taylorism or the next step in sociotechnical design? Human Relations ,
51: 259-287.
Porter, M. E. 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74 (6): 61-78.
38
Rao, S. S., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Solis, L. E. 1997. Does ISO 9000 have an effect on quality
management practices? An international empirical study. Total Quality Management, 8:
335-346.
Renn, R. W., & Swiercz, P. M. 1993. Measurement properties of the revised Job Diagnostic
Survey: More promising news from the public sector. Educational & Psychological
Measurement, 53: 1011-1022.
Rinehart, J., Huxley, C., & Robertson, D. 1997. Just Another Car Factory? LP and its
Discontents, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. 2000. Empowerment
and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting
fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85: 643-658.
Rogers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. 1993. Influence of top management commitment on
management program success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 : 151-155.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22: 1-13.
Rungtusanatham, M. 2001. Beyond improved quality: The motivational effects of statist ical
process control. Journal of Operations Management, 19: 653-673.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. 1978. A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes
and Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23:224-253.
Schneewind, J. B. 1998. The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schonberger, R. J. 1982. Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in
Simplicity. New York: The Free Press.
39
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453.
Schultz, K. L., Juran, D. C., Boudreau, J. W., McClain, J. O., & Thomas, L. J. 1998. Modeling
and worker motivation in JIT production systems. Management Science, 44: 1595-1607.
Scott, A. F., Macomber, J. H., & Ettkin, L. P. 1992. JIT and job satisfaction: Some empirical
results. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 36-41.
Sewell, G. , & Wilkinson, B. 1992. "Someone to watch over me": Surveillance, discipline, and the
just-in-time labour process. Sociology, 26: 271-289.
Shah, R., & Ward, P. T. In press. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and
performance. Journal of Operations Management.
Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organizations (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The
Leadership Quarterly, 9: 147-160.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. 1997. A dimensional analysis of the relationship
between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal
of Management , 23: 679-704.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F.1998. Self -efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124: 240-261.
Steers, R. M. , & Mowday, R. T. 1977. The motivational properties of tasks. Academy of
Management Review , 2: 645-658.
Suri, R. , & de Treville, S. 1986. Getting from just-in-case to just-in-time: insights from a simple
model. Journal of Operations Management, 6: 295-304.
40
Suzaki, K. 1987. The New Manufacturing Challenge: Techniques for Continuous Improvement.
New York: The Free Press.
Suzaki, K. 1993. The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous
Improvement: New York: The Free Press.
Tabor, T. D. & Taylor, E. 1990. A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the
job diagnostic survey. Personnel Psychology , 43: 467-500.
Thomas, K. W. , & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
"interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15:
666-681.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World, New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.
41
Figure 1: A model of LP motivational outcomes
Objective changes under LP
Inte
pret
ive
styl
es
Job
char
acte
risi
tcs
Intrinsic motivation
Commitment
Extrinsic motivation
Compliance
Demotivation
Conflict
ExcessiveLeanness
Env
iron
men
tal E
vent
sBehavioral Outcomes
•Activity•Concentration•Initiative•Resiliency•Flexibility•Stress•Resistance
Task
ass
essm
ents
