Consider the case at the end of Chapter 8, entitled 'The implementation of Lean Production' and respond to the following items:

Analyze the reactions of the employees as an example of Psychological resistance Political resistance Cultural resistance

Identify the different types of interests and motivations for the people involved in this case? Explain why or why not. How do people in this case struggle for power?

Do you think some explanations are more plausible than others to explain the resistance in this case? Explain why or why not.

Based on your analysis, what recommendations would you give to the senior managers and the line managers? Hint: Though this case appears at the end of chapter 8, chapter 9 and related course content will be most helpful in analyzing this case.

The implementation of Lean Production When N7 Gineering, a large USebased auto motive manufacturing company, opened the Northern Plant in the UK, the plant employed 70 employees and manufactured and supplied a limited product range of highitech auto moi ve products to only two European companies. Within 1 0 years the factory had become the agship of NGineering's European operations with TOOemployees and worldwide deliveries. The plant was wellknown for offering hir-quality products, both in terms of design and manufacturing, and had become the market leader with almost 90% of the international market. During this time of steady growth and strong market demand, Northern Plant experienced delivery problems. Since theycouldn't produce the parts fast enough, shipments were not being dispatched in time. Complaints from customers started to come in. In order to deal with the situation, at rst line managers made informal agreements with the shopoor workers. Adeal that could be described as a managementebyobjectives approach was adopted. The shopoor workers were free to structure their days as they wanted as long as deadlines were held, daily production levels were maintained and the products were upto standard. This formof selfimanagement, where managers would tolerate almost any shop-floor practice, can be understood as a kind of informal, unplanned responsible autonomy, where the managers trusted the workers to deliver high-quality products on time. The company also offered high wages in order to attract skilled employees. When the workers had finished their daily quota, they were free to undertake leisure activities, such as reading books or newspapers, playing darts, cards or table tennis, or even sleeping or going to the pub; the managers turned a blind eye to what they did. The unwritten agreement included incentives to do the right thing the first time because if the products did not meet the standards, they had to be re-worked during employees' free time'. Furthermore, in times of unexpected high delivery levels, the workers agreed to put in the extra time needed to finish the orders as fast as possible. It was, in other words, a give and take relationship. Without these agreements, the targets would not have been reached so readily. By the time the plant had been up and running for eight years, managers at Northern Plant started to experiment and implement 'new wave' production and employee involvement techniques such as JIT and TOM, and did so for the next 10 years. Since Northern Plant had an extraordinary market position and reputation of delivering high-quality products in a reliable way, there was little pressure from senior managers at N-Gineering to fully im- plement these techniques on a large-scale. They were simply expected to keep producing what they had always produced. Motor-Co, a Fortune 500 company, acquired N-Gineering when Northern Plant had been in production for 15 years. Shortly after, N-Gineering went through a major reorganization in which the number of manufacturing plants were reduced and production concentrated. Furthermore, the competition for Northern Plant increased significantly and so did the pressure from the top to change how the work was performed. Productivity was sup- posed to increase in order to maintain profit levels and the plant needed to comply to world-class standards. It was then that Northern Plant was about to implement Lean Production. The basic principles of Lean Production were actually not so far removed from the practices already in place at the factory, with its flexible teamworking built on high levels of trust as well as worker responsibility for main- taining high-quality products, doing the job right the first time and ensuring 'total quality control'. So managers thought it would be easy to introduce Lean Production since they already had their own version of it. But this assumption could not have been more wrong. The key idea with Lean Production is to establish a smooth flow in the manufacturing process by identifying and eliminating all types of waste: waste of time, warehouse space, labour, materials, etc. The ambition is to do more with less, which is accomplished through such things as just-in-time manufacturing and kaizen techniques, as well as multi-skilled workers organized in small flexible teams, working in specific production areas ('prod- uct-focused cells'). Direct supervision is relaxed in favour for worker empowerment and involvement. At Northern Plant, the work was reorganized into teams, with each team working in a product-focused cell. Training sessions with the personnel were held, where the workers were educated in the principles of Lean Produc- tion. Policy statements were produced, proclaiming that the plant had now invested in Lean Production. And headquarters, customers and suppliers were fed with information about the achievements made. At the shop-floor, performance charts were installed in each cell. From the outside, the production would appear as a fully functioning Lean Production system. The workers fully agreed to be flexible in order to meet production demands as well as to be strictly attentive to product quality - all to meet the requirements of the customers. However, they only agreed to do so as long as their informal arrangement of getting time off remained untouched. Therefore, in practice, little had changed. The shop-floor workers attended the training seminars and quality circles but saw them primarily as a way to get some time off. Efforts made by the managers to control the free time - what the workers did once the targets were met - were resisted, with threats to expose the window-dressing version of Lean Production upheld by North- ern Plant managers to please corporate management. A senior manager at N-Gineering headquarters in the US, who had come to Northern Plant to support the implementation of Lean Production, tells us about his view of the situation: Coming here has been a nightmare [...] Everyone talks about union problems at [Northern Plant], that it's militant [..] but militancy is normally associated with formal union activities, isn't it? [..] Well, it doesn't mean that here. [...] This is one of the most militant shops I've ever seen but none of it is union activity. According to Motor-Co, the working practices at Northern Plant were way behind the times and they talked about it as the 'factory with a problem'. The senior manager mentioned above was initially enthusiastic about getting the opportunity and challenge of facilitating the implementation of Lean Production and had willingly joined the project team, assuming that this would advance his career. He saw himself as a progressive and effective HRM specialist who now had the chance to apply his stock of knowledge. The workers were very sceptical about the implementation of Lean Production. For them, it was 'bullshit' and a 'con' - a change that would increase managerial control, rather than reducing direct supervision: What they're really saying is that they want you stuck on a machine and never getting a break... working like battery hens.Job rotation would only mean more boring tasks to perform. The workers accused the middle managers of introducing these changes only to promote their own careers and claimed that they were looking after their own interests' by making others work harder. Furthermore, increases in efficiency and productivity were seen as a threat to their opportunities to earn extra by working overtime (and thereby getting a time-and-a-half rate) and risked a reduction in the head-count. According to the shop-floor workers, Motor-Co's ambition to implement Lean Production had ruined the plant and the cooperative relations between managers and workers. They talked nostalgically about the past as a time when they 'didn't mind' coming to work, and even enjoyed it, as a time when 'it was a laugh' and 'everyone [both workers and managers] got stuck in together'. Above all, they saw themselves as qualified workers who had supe- rior knowledge, who understood and could run high-tech manufacturing with complex production mixes. Managers, on their side, described the new initiatives as beneficial for all, and thought it was possible to reach a mutual understanding through negotiations. They argued that the workers were being 'ridiculous', 'unreason- able' and 'unrealistic' towards what they saw as 'the need for change' and blamed a group of obstinate employees: We're a premier company, we've got preferred supplier and even single-source supplier status with a string of customers, and this lot [plant workers] won't talk to us without all kinds of guarantees [...] it's unheard of anywhere else. What annoys me is that we have some really good people who are being held back by the 'they're out to screw us brigade', the cynics, who know what they're doing, who know how to whip up the rest of the skilled men about this kind of thing. Questions Scrutinize the way managers describe Lean Production in the case. Would you say that it is beneficial for all? Empowering? . Identify the different types of interests and motivations for the people involved in this case. . How do people in the case struggle for power? Sources: Ezzamel et al. (2001, 2004); Worthington (2017) Further Reading Go online to access free and downloadable SAGE Journal articles related to this chapter at https://study.sagepub.com/sveningsson Davies, A. (2000). Change in the UK police service: The costs and dilemmas of restructured managerial roles and identities. Journal of Change Management, 1(1), 41-58. Dawson, P., & Buchanan, D. (2005). The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Human Relations, 58(7), 845-865. Gordon, R. D. (2005). An empirical investigation into the power behind empowerment. Organization Management Journal, 2(3), 144-165