Explaining variation in the social performance of lean production: a comparative case study of the role played by workplace unions' framing of the system and institutions

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12244
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019
• Author: Andrea Signoretti

Explaining variation in the social

performance of lean production: a

comparative case study of the role played by

workplace unions’framing of the system

and institutions

Andrea Signoretti

ABSTRACT

Several studies have acknowledged that lean production is implemented in diverse

ways across workplaces, thereby generating different outcomes for workers. How-

ever, explanations for this variability needs further development. The present article

addresses this issue by considering the role played by workplace unions’framing of

lean production. It finds that unions’framing is derived from their identities in inter-

action with available resources in institutional and organisational terms. A case study

comparison of the automotive parts industry in Italy and the United States was

conducted.

1 INTRODUCTION

Lean production constitutes a diffuse organisational model. While it has been proven

capable of increasing companies’competitiveness (Shah and Ward, 2007), its out-

comes for workers, namely, its social performance, remain disputed (Distelhorst

et al., 2016). In focusing on organisational and human resource management

(HRM) practices, lean production is perceived as representing a bottom-up approach

to implementing technical principles and related techniques aimed at improving both

the efficiency of production processes and work experience (Shah and Ward, 2007).

This approach would encompass the transformation from Taylor-Ford

organisational models to the adoption of both distinctive and traditional (but never-

theless differently regulated) employment arrangements (Godard, 2004; Pagell et al.,

2014). Indeed, a number of studies have demonstrated that the application of lean

production in the field of human capital deployment varies among workplaces. For

instance, Adler and Borys (1996) found that in the New United Motor Manufactur-

ing, Inc. auto plant, which was co-founded by Toyota and General Motors and ap-

plies lean production principles, workers were considerably more engaged than was

the case in traditional Taylor-Ford factories because they were allowed to standardise

and formalise the most efficient work procedures by accounting for their working

❒Andrea Signoretti, Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.

Correspondence to: Andrea Signoretti, Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of

Trento, Via Verdi, 26, Trento 38122, Italy; e-mail: a.signoretti@unitn.it

Industrial Relations Journal 50:2, 126–149

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

conditions. In contrast, paying attention to the British automotive industry, Stewart

et al. (2009) argued that the realities of lean production involved increased production

pressures and greater stress. However, the reasons behind this variation and contrast-

ing consequences for workers remain unclear (Bamber et al., 2014).

This article aims to address this variation in the social outcomes of lean production

within unionised enterprises through exploring how workplace unions frame the

system (Dufour and Hege, 2013). This framing appears to derive from workplace

union identity, affected by the character of sectoral labour organisations at the

national and especially local (referring to territorial) levels, in interaction with the

resources available to it in the institutional context and in terms of plant-level

organisational strength. Consideration of the interplay between union identity on

the one hand and the institutional and organisational resources available to labour or-

ganisations on the other has been already taken into account to explain the influence

exerted by workplace unions in the regulation of employment practices (Frege and

Kelly, 2003; Lloyd and Payne, 2012). This article’s novel contribution consists of its

application of such a theoretical framework to account for the varied social perfor-

mance of lean production in different institutional contexts by also underlining the

recursive interconnections between union identity and the resources available with

institutional factors playing an important role. Interconnections mean that while

institutional and organisations factors affect unions’action representing either re-

sources or constraints, labour organisations can use them (or not) and do so in

different ways (Kochan, 2012; Murray et al., 2013).

At the same time, it is important to recognise that unions’framing of lean produc-

tion does not represent the only driver of the different social performances of lean

production. As highlighted by Hauptmeier (2012), management ideologies produce

specific framings of situations that contribute to substantiate the construction of insti-

tutions at the firm level. It follows that management’s framing of lean production

represents another important driver of social performance. Thus, although this article

focuses on workplace unions as a key explanatory actor, the importance of framing

by management will be acknowledged, too.

In order to pursue the research objective, a comparative analysis of two unionised

plants that belong to the same American multinational company (MNC henceforth)

and that operate as independent first-tier suppliers in the automotive sector in Turin

(Italy) and Detroit (United States) was conducted. The term ‘independent suppliers’

refers to the fact that the firms are not owned by car manufacturers. The results reveal

remarkable differences that are nevertheless explained by the same theoretical frame-

work. In the Italian plant, unions have resisted the speed-up aspects of the system

stressed by managers, while avoiding challenging the latter’s claims regarding

employee participation. In contrast, in the US plant, the union adopted a concessive

approach towards the managerial framing of the system, resulting in stressful working

conditions and poor levels of employee involvement.

2 EXPLAINING THE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE OF LEAN PRODUCTION

Lean production represents a multidimensional approach to manufacturing based on

an integrated set of managerial practices and technical principles, including just-in-

time supply and continuous improvement aimed at increasing productivity and

minimising waste and stock (Shah and Ward, 2007). The technical principles are

considered as requiring employee cooperation in order to be realised through the

127Explaining variation in the social performance of lean production

© 2019 Brian Towers (BRITOW) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd