Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) present an important review and invitation to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to practically and empirically consider Lean management. As with any novel foray into management research or practice, our engagement should also explicitly consider ethical and moral issues. As Lefkowitz (Reference Lefkowitz2008) writes, we should not only be asking about the validity and cost effectiveness of interventions but also about whether they are the “right thing to do” (p. 446). In the case of Lean management, we should be considering the morality and impact of such interventions before perfecting their properties and implementation. Thus, although we agree with Balzer and colleagues that Lean is in need of I-O psychologist involvement, we see this need as stemming from a separate issue: an ethical prerogative.
I-O psychologists often avoid discussions of ethics and morals, and rest on claims of scientific objectivity, or the complexities and gray areas of the “real world,” to defend our silence. Indeed, we more readily criticize our peers’ statistical assumptions than we do their ethical and moral assumptions. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in our willing acceptance of employee control buzzwords. We assume “empowerment” and “participative management” interventions are what they profess to be and have commensurate well-being advantages for employees. Logically, we know this may not be the case; under pressure to publish or consult, however, our assumptions may go untested. The newfound consideration of Lean through an I-O psychology lens is an ideal place to deviate from our well-worn habits. We must recognize the humanist values that underlie our work as I-O psychologists and apply them critically and constructively to science and practice within and outside of our traditional domain.
We have a responsibility as I-O psychologists not only to help support research and theory on Lean practices, as Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) suggest, but also to help make sure that its implementation is fair, ethical, and supportive of employee well-being. The occupational health effects of Lean management warrant particular attention in light of the contradictory well-being evidence in the literature. Balzer and colleagues review a number of articles that either support or call into question the well-being impacts of Lean. It is thus apparent that the “respect for people” pillar of Lean may not be as central to Lean in practice as it is in concept. The authors then provide questions for I-O researchers to address, chiefly concerning Lean participation (how much), program components (what), and timing (at what point). We argue that three more fundamental questions are at stake here: Why, where, and for whom are Lean implementation and management relevant, appropriate, and ethically sound (and why, where, and for whom are they irrelevant, inappropriate, or unethical)? These questions are inextricably linked to one another, as well as to questions of professional ethics, personal morals, and ideology.
In considering the first question (i.e., the “why” of Lean), the motivations behind Lean implementation are important to appraise. Organizational interventions are inherently political processes, infused with power dynamics and hierarchies. Decision making is often concentrated in the hands of a few select managers and leaders. The origin and development of interventions are thus products of powerful individuals’ interests, which have substantial consequences for the shape and course of Lean interventions, the criteria on which they are evaluated, and their implications for employee well-being. “True” motivations and interests may or may not be easy to deduce. However, we must strive to identify when organizations pursue Lean, not in the service of quality, waste reduction, and employee empowerment, but to curtail employee control and increase workload. Some more ethically and morally ambiguous motives include the use of Lean to support downsizing efforts, cost cutting through temporary work pools, and pay flexibility (Bose & Sinha, Reference Bose and Sinha2012). On their own, these are not inherently bad things. However, when combined with ulterior and unjust motives, streamlined labor utilization can easily devolve into employee exploitation, particularly for lower level employees.
The intended, expected, and ultimate impact of interventions are a central concern for I-O scientists and practitioners alike. These are not only interesting for generating extensive theory, rigorous research, and well-structured organizational change; they are core to promoting justice and equity through our work. Although an intervention’s overt purpose and objectives should be readily identifiable, I-O psychologists are also in a good position to assess the underlying assumptions and values that less explicitly shape an organization’s stake in Lean. How are individual interests and well-being prioritized (or neglected) in a given organization? Who is or is not supporting the Lean initiative, and why? Will workers be granted more autonomy, the illusion of autonomy, or actually lose control as a result of this intervention? Do the organization’s beliefs about employees and work align with the values of Lean and with our values as I-O psychologists? Answering these questions is fundamental to assessing and protecting workers’ occupational health in the context of Lean.
The second question we emphasize (i.e., the “where” of Lean) pertains to the context in which Lean interventions take place. It is well known that the context of organizational change is crucial in determining the viability and consequences of an intervention. Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) provide several contextual factors that they feel merit additional consideration (e.g., preferred climate for optimal implementation, role of climate/culture on success, etc.). Before tackling these more functional and practical issues, it is important to first consider the properties and consequences of Lean programs across different industries and job types. Despite its production manufacturing origins, Lean has been applied in other areas, including healthcare, higher education, government, and the military; however, these public-sector applications may require different approaches to implementation as well as result in different outcomes for employees and organizations (Radnor & Boaden, Reference Radnor and Boaden2008). The degree to which Lean is translatable to, useful in, and suitable for different industries is unclear. Thus, we need to understand the impact of industry on Lean and vice versa before concerning ourselves with implementation issues.
Other salient concerns include task design and job characteristics (and how they may or may not lend themselves to a Lean management system), as well as the presence of unions or collective bargaining units that may conflict with Lean decision-making groups operationally or ideologically (Huxley, Reference Huxley2015). Local and national cultural considerations should be investigated with respect to hierarchy and power, control beliefs, and facility with team-oriented work systems, particularly as they relate to employee outcomes (Brown & O’Rourke, Reference Brown and O’Rourke2007; Distelhorst, Hainmueller, & Locke, Reference Distelhorst, Hainmueller and Locke2017). I-O psychologists have the tools to conduct such analyses as well as consider these factors in applied work. The implementation of Lean and its impact on individuals may well rest upon such contextual factors.
It will be critical to evaluate two contextual components of organizations as well: employee participation in the Lean decision and implementation process (i.e., granting employees control and voice before and during vs. as a result of the intervention) and the communication employees receive about Lean initiatives (i.e., informational justice before and throughout the intervention). These two aspects of Lean are central to understanding whether and to what extent employees are empowered and granted control, and thereby to determining the justness and outcomes of such an intervention. When changes are guided by actual employee need, Lean-prompted training or task variety may have individual-level benefits that counteract or even outweigh the costs of work intensification (e.g., English language classes for non-English-speaking immigrant service workers, decreased task segregation by gender; O’Donnell, Reference O’Donnell1995). This type of change would be just from a societal perspective as well, insomuch as it promotes equity for less-advantaged working populations. Such effects are plausibly contingent upon employee involvement and information sharing in the Lean process. Our questions thus pertain to “where” Lean enables justice and promotes empowerment, not necessarily where or when Lean is most effective in bringing about production efficiency. Ideally, the answers to our questions prompt efficiency, well-being, and justice alike. For now, however, we must not make such assumptions; instead we should place our focus on individual well-being and ethics.
Finally, we call for attention to which populations are or are not fitting recipients of Lean interventions (i.e., the “for whom” of Lean). Individuals differ in the degree to which they “want” or benefit from control at work. The forms of control individuals desire and benefit from can differ as well (e.g., with respect to scheduling, work processes, performance criteria). Thus, there are individual differences in the appeal of Lean management models that should be considered when investigating its occupational health outcomes. As I-O psychologists are well aware, a multitude of individual difference configurations can be represented in organizations and have bearing upon intervention outcomes.
On a similar note, certain populations may be more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of Lean interventions (e.g., Carter et al., Reference Carter, Danford, Howcroft, Richardson, Smith and Taylor2013). Particularly when these populations intersect with societal disadvantage or disempowerment (e.g., as a function of age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status), it behooves us to pay attention to the differential effectiveness and consequences of Lean paradigms. That being said, if Lean has systematic advantages for working conditions and labor law compliance, the first and foremost targets of such interventions would ideally be those in greatest need: individuals working in otherwise abysmal and unsafe conditions with minimal training and compensation (i.e., “sweatshops”; Mefford, Reference Mefford2010). I-O psychologists have the power to influence this. Values and ethics, as well as continued interrogation of “why” and “where” Lean will be implemented, will guide this practice. We have much to contribute to Lean, from our awareness of individual and contextual differences to our professional values concerning the protection and promotion of employee well-being. Remembering our ethical roots and recognizing their relevance to, and conflict with, management trends and practices is a vital way forward for our discipline. In the case of Lean, we recommend considering why, where, and for whom this management strategy is (or is not) relevant, appropriate, and ethically sound, before delving into work that assumes this intervention is justifiable. We agree with Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) that I-O psychologists have a great skill base to leverage in improving and broadening the impact of Lean. However, these improvements in strategy and scope should come after a thorough, value-conscious assessment of Lean’s occupational health risks and benefits.
You have
Access
Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) present an important review and invitation to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to practically and empirically consider Lean management. As with any novel foray into management research or practice, our engagement should also explicitly consider ethical and moral issues. As Lefkowitz (Reference Lefkowitz2008) writes, we should not only be asking about the validity and cost effectiveness of interventions but also about whether they are the “right thing to do” (p. 446). In the case of Lean management, we should be considering the morality and impact of such interventions before perfecting their properties and implementation. Thus, although we agree with Balzer and colleagues that Lean is in need of I-O psychologist involvement, we see this need as stemming from a separate issue: an ethical prerogative.
I-O psychologists often avoid discussions of ethics and morals, and rest on claims of scientific objectivity, or the complexities and gray areas of the “real world,” to defend our silence. Indeed, we more readily criticize our peers’ statistical assumptions than we do their ethical and moral assumptions. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in our willing acceptance of employee control buzzwords. We assume “empowerment” and “participative management” interventions are what they profess to be and have commensurate well-being advantages for employees. Logically, we know this may not be the case; under pressure to publish or consult, however, our assumptions may go untested. The newfound consideration of Lean through an I-O psychology lens is an ideal place to deviate from our well-worn habits. We must recognize the humanist values that underlie our work as I-O psychologists and apply them critically and constructively to science and practice within and outside of our traditional domain.
We have a responsibility as I-O psychologists not only to help support research and theory on Lean practices, as Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) suggest, but also to help make sure that its implementation is fair, ethical, and supportive of employee well-being. The occupational health effects of Lean management warrant particular attention in light of the contradictory well-being evidence in the literature. Balzer and colleagues review a number of articles that either support or call into question the well-being impacts of Lean. It is thus apparent that the “respect for people” pillar of Lean may not be as central to Lean in practice as it is in concept. The authors then provide questions for I-O researchers to address, chiefly concerning Lean participation (how much), program components (what), and timing (at what point). We argue that three more fundamental questions are at stake here: Why, where, and for whom are Lean implementation and management relevant, appropriate, and ethically sound (and why, where, and for whom are they irrelevant, inappropriate, or unethical)? These questions are inextricably linked to one another, as well as to questions of professional ethics, personal morals, and ideology.
In considering the first question (i.e., the “why” of Lean), the motivations behind Lean implementation are important to appraise. Organizational interventions are inherently political processes, infused with power dynamics and hierarchies. Decision making is often concentrated in the hands of a few select managers and leaders. The origin and development of interventions are thus products of powerful individuals’ interests, which have substantial consequences for the shape and course of Lean interventions, the criteria on which they are evaluated, and their implications for employee well-being. “True” motivations and interests may or may not be easy to deduce. However, we must strive to identify when organizations pursue Lean, not in the service of quality, waste reduction, and employee empowerment, but to curtail employee control and increase workload. Some more ethically and morally ambiguous motives include the use of Lean to support downsizing efforts, cost cutting through temporary work pools, and pay flexibility (Bose & Sinha, Reference Bose and Sinha2012). On their own, these are not inherently bad things. However, when combined with ulterior and unjust motives, streamlined labor utilization can easily devolve into employee exploitation, particularly for lower level employees.
The intended, expected, and ultimate impact of interventions are a central concern for I-O scientists and practitioners alike. These are not only interesting for generating extensive theory, rigorous research, and well-structured organizational change; they are core to promoting justice and equity through our work. Although an intervention’s overt purpose and objectives should be readily identifiable, I-O psychologists are also in a good position to assess the underlying assumptions and values that less explicitly shape an organization’s stake in Lean. How are individual interests and well-being prioritized (or neglected) in a given organization? Who is or is not supporting the Lean initiative, and why? Will workers be granted more autonomy, the illusion of autonomy, or actually lose control as a result of this intervention? Do the organization’s beliefs about employees and work align with the values of Lean and with our values as I-O psychologists? Answering these questions is fundamental to assessing and protecting workers’ occupational health in the context of Lean.
The second question we emphasize (i.e., the “where” of Lean) pertains to the context in which Lean interventions take place. It is well known that the context of organizational change is crucial in determining the viability and consequences of an intervention. Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) provide several contextual factors that they feel merit additional consideration (e.g., preferred climate for optimal implementation, role of climate/culture on success, etc.). Before tackling these more functional and practical issues, it is important to first consider the properties and consequences of Lean programs across different industries and job types. Despite its production manufacturing origins, Lean has been applied in other areas, including healthcare, higher education, government, and the military; however, these public-sector applications may require different approaches to implementation as well as result in different outcomes for employees and organizations (Radnor & Boaden, Reference Radnor and Boaden2008). The degree to which Lean is translatable to, useful in, and suitable for different industries is unclear. Thus, we need to understand the impact of industry on Lean and vice versa before concerning ourselves with implementation issues.
Other salient concerns include task design and job characteristics (and how they may or may not lend themselves to a Lean management system), as well as the presence of unions or collective bargaining units that may conflict with Lean decision-making groups operationally or ideologically (Huxley, Reference Huxley2015). Local and national cultural considerations should be investigated with respect to hierarchy and power, control beliefs, and facility with team-oriented work systems, particularly as they relate to employee outcomes (Brown & O’Rourke, Reference Brown and O’Rourke2007; Distelhorst, Hainmueller, & Locke, Reference Distelhorst, Hainmueller and Locke2017). I-O psychologists have the tools to conduct such analyses as well as consider these factors in applied work. The implementation of Lean and its impact on individuals may well rest upon such contextual factors.
It will be critical to evaluate two contextual components of organizations as well: employee participation in the Lean decision and implementation process (i.e., granting employees control and voice before and during vs. as a result of the intervention) and the communication employees receive about Lean initiatives (i.e., informational justice before and throughout the intervention). These two aspects of Lean are central to understanding whether and to what extent employees are empowered and granted control, and thereby to determining the justness and outcomes of such an intervention. When changes are guided by actual employee need, Lean-prompted training or task variety may have individual-level benefits that counteract or even outweigh the costs of work intensification (e.g., English language classes for non-English-speaking immigrant service workers, decreased task segregation by gender; O’Donnell, Reference O’Donnell1995). This type of change would be just from a societal perspective as well, insomuch as it promotes equity for less-advantaged working populations. Such effects are plausibly contingent upon employee involvement and information sharing in the Lean process. Our questions thus pertain to “where” Lean enables justice and promotes empowerment, not necessarily where or when Lean is most effective in bringing about production efficiency. Ideally, the answers to our questions prompt efficiency, well-being, and justice alike. For now, however, we must not make such assumptions; instead we should place our focus on individual well-being and ethics.
Finally, we call for attention to which populations are or are not fitting recipients of Lean interventions (i.e., the “for whom” of Lean). Individuals differ in the degree to which they “want” or benefit from control at work. The forms of control individuals desire and benefit from can differ as well (e.g., with respect to scheduling, work processes, performance criteria). Thus, there are individual differences in the appeal of Lean management models that should be considered when investigating its occupational health outcomes. As I-O psychologists are well aware, a multitude of individual difference configurations can be represented in organizations and have bearing upon intervention outcomes.
On a similar note, certain populations may be more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of Lean interventions (e.g., Carter et al., Reference Carter, Danford, Howcroft, Richardson, Smith and Taylor2013). Particularly when these populations intersect with societal disadvantage or disempowerment (e.g., as a function of age, gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status), it behooves us to pay attention to the differential effectiveness and consequences of Lean paradigms. That being said, if Lean has systematic advantages for working conditions and labor law compliance, the first and foremost targets of such interventions would ideally be those in greatest need: individuals working in otherwise abysmal and unsafe conditions with minimal training and compensation (i.e., “sweatshops”; Mefford, Reference Mefford2010). I-O psychologists have the power to influence this. Values and ethics, as well as continued interrogation of “why” and “where” Lean will be implemented, will guide this practice. We have much to contribute to Lean, from our awareness of individual and contextual differences to our professional values concerning the protection and promotion of employee well-being. Remembering our ethical roots and recognizing their relevance to, and conflict with, management trends and practices is a vital way forward for our discipline. In the case of Lean, we recommend considering why, where, and for whom this management strategy is (or is not) relevant, appropriate, and ethically sound, before delving into work that assumes this intervention is justifiable. We agree with Balzer et al. (Reference Balzer, Brodke, Kluse and Zickar2019) that I-O psychologists have a great skill base to leverage in improving and broadening the impact of Lean. However, these improvements in strategy and scope should come after a thorough, value-conscious assessment of Lean’s occupational health risks and benefits.