MORE OF THE SAME? A POST-STRUCTURAL FEMINIST ANALYSIS

OF LEAN MANUFACTURING

By

IAN CHITWOOD

Integrated Studies Project

submitted to Dr. Angela Specht

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

February, 2014

1

Abstract

As organizations from a wide variety of industries grapple with the unrelenting competitive demands of globalization, ever-greater numbers are implementing lean production systems to improve the efficiencies of existing production equipment, processes, and resources. Lean methodology endeavours to generate increased value through the elimination of waste and the reduction of inefficiencies.

Although numerous organizations are rapidly adopting lean methodologies and practices, very little academic research has been focused on how individuals’ perceptions and experiences are influenced by the approach. How lean informs the construction of gender, power, knowledge, communication and shared meaning is not fully understood. The outcomes of this integrated project include the development a theoretical foundation for exploring the idea of gendered power relations within lean manufacturing, and for the exploration of the perpetuation of male dominance within the paradigm through the examination of secondary sources and existing research on related systems and methodologies, including classical applications such as Taylorism. Examining lean discourse from a post-structural feminist perspective allows for the critical analysis of the foundational assumptions of lean, and the extent to which lean methodology reproduces hegemonic power; ultimately marginalizing women by perpetuating subjective constitutions of knowledge, truth, and power.

2

Dedication

This integrated project is dedicated to my darling wife, Jodanna. Without her love and support, this

would not have been possible.

3

Table of Contents

Abstract 1

Dedication 2

Table of Contents 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Historical Development of Lean Methodology 5

3. Literature Review 9

3.1. The Marginalization of Women in Traditional Manufacturing 10

3.2. Employee Issues (Non Performance) Addressed in Literature 13

4. Post-Structural Feminism 18

5. Drawing a Link between Lean and Gender-Based Power Relations 19

6. The Language of Lean Manufacturing and Gender Construction 23

7. More of the Same? 24

References 26

4

1. Introduction

Post-structural feminist theory interrogates the constitution of the ‘feminine’ within modernity,

positing the ‘feminine’ as a social construction of gendered subjectivities. It questions the claims of

many feminist theories that conceive a privileged knowing subject, an essential feminine construct, and

universal representation of women. Within an organizational context, post-structural feminist theory

offers a broad critique of how organizational knowledge is constructed through language or discourse,

and how that knowledge contributes to the subjectivity of the feminine and the contingent nature of

gender. It is through language―the esoteric vocabulary shared by members of an organization,

profession, or industry―that knowledge is constructed and ultimately shared. This creation of

knowledge through discourse reproduces and sustains hegemonic power, differently influencing both

women’s and men’s experience of work. As lean methodology informs organizational power,

knowledge and the conceptualization of difference, it ultimately perpetuates gender inequity within

organizations by failing to subvert hegemonic subjectivities in the construction of gender.

As organizations from a wide variety of industries grapple with the unrelenting competitive

demands of globalization, ever-greater numbers are implementing lean production systems to improve

the efficiencies of existing production equipment, processes, and resources. Lean methodology

endeavours to generate increased value through the elimination of waste, whether in excess inventory,

poor quality, production bottlenecks, or unnecessary work. Niepce and Molleman (1998) describe the

philosophy of lean as “the continual rationalization of production,” targeted at the “minimization of

waste…by reducing manning and working-time buffers” (p. 80). To achieve these ends, lean encourages

work reform towards cross-functional, self-directed work teams by favouring standardization of tasks,

interchangeability of labour, and diminution of difference. Work intensity, employee autonomy and

control become informed by a characteristically participative approach to workplace involvement,

affecting perceptions of work, and experience of work. Moreover, lean relies upon mathematics,

5

statistics, and esoteric language, informing a gendered representation of knowledge and operation of

power. The rapid implementation of lean methodology, discourse, and language is shaping the

construction of gender in numerous organizations by perpetuating subjective constitutions of

knowledge, truth, and power.

Examining lean discourse from a post-structural feminist perspective allows for the critical

analysis of the foundational assumptions of lean, and the extent to which lean methodology reproduces

hegemonic power, ultimately marginalizing women. The perpetuation of hegemonic power may

similarly constrain or influence individuals of any gender in problematic ways. Critical analysis, by

drawing consideration to the productiveness of gender difference and the value of diverse experiences,

may help identify hegemony, possibilities of discrimination, and ultimately inform opportunities to

improve workplace equity.

2. Historical Development of Lean as a Methodology

The evolution of lean production systems is typically linked to the successful narrative of the

Toyota Motor Company’s Toyota Production System (TPS). According to Sorin Teich & Fady Faddoul

(2013) TPS was characterized by five principles:

1. Identification of customer value.

2. Management of “value stream.”

3. Developing capabilities of flow production.

4. Use of “pull” mechanisms to support flow of materials at constrained operations.

5. Pursuit of perfection through reducing to zero all forms of “waste.”

Essentially, TPS was an approach that sought to enhance customer value by adding product or service

features while eliminating wasteful activities. The term lean was coined in 1990 following the

adaptation of the TPS concept by a number of non-Japanese enterprises which identified similar

6

challenges and problems in a variety of applications, from manufacturing to healthcare. The concept of

lean is not new, however. Early industrial theorists including Adam Smith and Frederick Taylor refined

variants of lean production with respect to early manufacturing, identifying a requisite for efficiency.

The appeal of lean exceeds the mere cost-reduction philosophy of industrial mass production, as it

advocates “teamwork, multi-skilling, job rotation, task enlargement, and worker participation in

continuous improvement activities” (Johansson, Abrahamsson, & Johansson, 2013, p. 449).

Lean is a multi-faceted concept that requires organizations to invest considerable resources

simultaneously in order to implement the major strategic components of lean, implement practices to

support operations, and to validate the effectiveness and sustainability of the initiatives over the long

term. Full lean implementation is an ambitious and highly involved undertaking, requiring long-term

commitment from leaders and workers alike as it is a transformative process, informed by a

methodology devised to change individual and group behaviours and entire organizational cultures. The

successful entrenchment of lean within Japanese organizations was successful, in part, because “the

main three characteristics of Japanese management thinking are harmony and group loyalty, consensus

in decision-making, and lifetime employment, all encompassed in the concept of ‘respect for people’”

(Teich & Faddoul, 2013, p. 3).

Lean methodology has been successfully implemented and operationalized in a number of

different organizations and industries since its inception in North America in the early 1990’s. According

to Barry Cross (2013) lean facilitates improvement in organizational efficiency by freeing up

resources―people, time, space, and capital―to focus on and drive innovative projects; eliminates

wasteful processes and products that do not add customer value; and creates a sense of scarcity within

organizations which fosters creative problem solving. Although lean is typically associated with

manufacturing and production applications, many organizations, including Quebec-based Cirque du

Soleil (Cross, 2013), have benefitted from its implementation. By clearly identifying areas of maximum

7

customer value―a compelling storyline, the provision of a high quality entertainment experience, and

the creation of a “Broadway-like theatre concept” (Cross, 2013, p. 36)―whilst eliminating costly

features such as animal acts or employing a Master of Ceremonies―Cirque du Soleil is able to design

and deliver an innovative, entertaining act without sacrificing its core philosophy, which is to “evoke the

imagination, invoke the senses and provoke the emotions of people around the world” (“Cirque du

Soleil”, n.d.). Cirque du Soleil has embraced lean methodology to continuously improve quality to meet

rising customer expectations―a fundamental process outcome of the methodology.

Khim Sim & Bea Chiang (2013) advocate that the future of organizations in advanced industrial

countries depends on the ability to achieve dramatic improvements in productivity―output per

employee―while continuously improving quality: it is regarded “as one of the most important strategies

for business to achieve world class performance by doing more with less” (p. 98). While lean

manufacturing is widely accepted as a proven method to achieve improvements in productivity while

realizing customer value, it should not be viewed as a panacea for every business situation, nor should it

be employed by every organization. According to Patricia Deflorin and Maike Scherrer-Rathje (2012) to

become lean, an organization or company “must account for each of the four dimensions of the 4P

model: philosophy, process, people and partners, and problem-solving” (p. 3958). Ultimately, successful

lean implementation is suited for organizations with a long-term philosophy with the goal of being a

value-added contributor to a specific industry, which necessitates a workforce characterized by long-

term thinking―achieved through the implementation of a “learning organization” philosophy (Cullinane

et al., 2012). Lean has typically been most successful in industries and organizations which rely on mass

production and standardization of products and services―organizations which rely on craft production

or mass customization must be cautious when adopting lean methodology, or aspects of it, as it

necessitates a number of dramatic cultural changes, including the standardization of work processes,

cross-training, and the de-skilling of a tasks to promote interchangeability of labour (Deflorin & Scherrer-

8

Rathje, 2012). Organizations may benefit from the implementation of alternative methodologies, such

as Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM), Agile Manufacturing, Total Quality Management (TQM), or

even ‘Traditional Manufacturing,’ in which production is driven by sales forecasts (a push system versus

Lean’s pull system), change is driven from the top, and the status quo is deemed acceptable.

Organizational research on lean implementation suggests that organizations must change at a

behavioural and cultural level to facilitate long-term entrenchment, and that this should be translated

directly into an endless process for continuous improvement (Teich & Faddoul, 2013). Despite being

framed within the realm of tangible strategic business direction, “cultural change” and “continuous

improvement” are abstract concepts, which imply that there is no horizon for successful completion as

the process is infinite. The abstract natures of these concepts, coupled with the nebulous cultural

characteristics supportive of lean implementation often prove too intricate, too daunting, or too

formidable for many companies to sustain over the long-term. According to Sanjay Bhasin and Peter

Burcher (2006), although lean has been widely recognized for its effectiveness in continuously improving

productivity, product quality, and on-time delivery to customers, a mere 10 percent of companies which

implement lean are able to sustain the practices and cultural reformation for more than five years.

However, it has been suggested that only some 10 percent or less of companies succeed at

implementing lean practices and philosophy entirely: many companies and organizations implement

initiatives almost as a fad, and submit that “the number of tools, techniques and technologies available

to improve operational performance is growing rapidly, on the other hand, despite dramatic successes

in a few companies, most efforts to use them fail to produce significant results” (Repenning & Sternman,

2001, p. 1).

9

3. Literature Review

Early research examining lean methodology had argued that it leads to work intensification

(Delbridge, Turnbull, & Wilkinson, 1992), as it was perceived to rely upon management by stress. Other

research, however, has suggested that if implemented effectively, employees would work “smarter, not

harder” (Womack & Jones, 1994), and experience a decrease in work-related stress. However, as

Cullinane, Bosak, Flood, & Demerouti, 2012) point out, studies which have “empirically assessed the

implications of lean manufacturing for employees have yielded contradictory findings which either

demonstrate solely negative outcomes or contingent outcomes where improved well-being is

dependent on specific management practices” (p. 2). Although there is a body of literature that

examines the benefits of lean production methods for employees (Delbridge, Lowe, & Oliver, 2000), very

little research, empirical or theoretical, has been focused on how lean actually affects employees’

experiences of work, or how it contributes to employees’ perceptions of self. Rather, much of the

research has focused on measures of organizational improvement―largely from an organization

perspective―including employee productivity, quality improvement, and reduction in cost.

The focus of the literature review is to provide a review of current trends in lean research, and

to provide context for a post-structural feminist analysis of the methodology. From an initial reading

and analysis of over ninety articles, twelve were selected for in-depth review, as they provided insight

into current research trends with respect to employee outcomes, employee experience, and

perceptions of lean. Unfortunately, no current research relating specifically to the marginalization of

women within lean manufacturing environments has been conducted. Moreover, little research

regarding the social dimensions of lean manufacturing exists. A review of the selected articles identifies

this void in current qualitative research, ultimately providing context and justification for a post-

structural feminist analysis of lean methodology.

10

3.1. The Marginalization of Women in Traditional Manufacturing

Scholarship in organizational studies has, for the most part, neglected or ignored the study of

gender (Mills et al., 2007). Historical studies, such as the Hawthorne Studies,1 and the organizational

research conducted by Lester Coch2 and John French3 ignored gender entirely, dismissing it as

inconsequential to the outcome of their studies (Hassard, 2012). Later research, particularly that

conducted by Robert Blauner4, consider gender only in a trivialized manner (Hassard, 2012). Studying

workplace alienation, Blauner analyzed the statements of male and female workers in different ways:

when interviewing men, Blauner interpreted their activities and responses as being primarily job-related

by using a ‘job model’ of analysis (Kirsch & Lengermann, 1973). When men expressed discontent, for

example, Blauner recorded this as a valid expression of work-related dissatisfaction; when interviewing

women, activities and responses were primarily related to their gender, and a “crude gender model”

was implemented (Kirsh & Lengermann, 1973, p. 188). Although the contributions of these authors

have significantly influenced organizational theory, all failed to recognize the significance of gender in

constructing organizational discourse, or in constructing and reproducing organizational knowledge. A

significant body of classical research was influenced by the Tayloristic principles of scientific

management and instrumental rationality, which relied on an abstraction of an “ideal worker that has

neither a body nor a gender” (Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998, p. 6). The characteristics of the abstract

worker―available full-time, highly qualified, and work-oriented―are presented in the many classical

works as abstract and neutral, as early organizational theorists regarded gender as an inconsequential

1 The Hawthorne Studies were a series of experiments conducted between 1924 and 1932 at the Hawthorne

Works outside Chicago, IL. The experiments were conceived to test whether changes in working conditions, such as lighting, affected employee productivity. 2 Lester Coch’s Overcoming Resistance to Change (1948) reported on an industrial experiment designed to

determine why workers resisted job changes and what could be done to rectify the situation. 3 John French’s The Bases of Social Power (1959) identified five types of social power (referent, expert, reward,

coercive, and legitimate power), influencing various research hypotheses. 4 Robert Blauner’s Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and his Industry (1964) attempted to explore the

social, psychological, and multidimensional conceptions of alienation within industrial communities.

11

element of organizations, focusing on the objective outcomes of work, rather than the process of

socialization. Implicitly, however, the characteristics of the disembodied worker correspond rather to

the assumed characteristics of male workers than to those of female workers in contemporary reality.

The notion of the abstract or ‘ideal’ worker is an important manifestation of the functioning of gender

subtext in organizations, and is not gender-neutral.

Feminist scholars have attempted to expose the extent to which gender had been ignored in

many leading studies of organizational theory. Theorists such as Max Weber, Michel Crozier, and

Herbert Simon have been criticized for ignoring gender, sexuality, and emotionality when

conceptualizing organizational characteristics including bounded rationality and bureaucracy. Even

more contemporary theories, such as Victor Allen’s5 (1975) Marxist analysis of organizations and Burrell

& Morgan’s6 (1979) radical critique of organization theory provide no specific references to men,

women, sex, or gender in their indexes (Mills et al., 2007). The exclusion of gender in organizational

analysis limits understanding of individual perceptions, values, opinions and actions, and ultimately

ignores one of the most crucial features of organizations, namely an understanding of the interpersonal

relations within an organizational structure.

With respect to the manufacturing sector―from which lean methodology traces its roots, and is

most commonly employed―the contributions of women, and the study of women, have similarly been

minimized. Generally, female workers within manufacturing organizations are afforded less prestige,

while male workers are afforded higher status, even if the task is identical. Manufacturing, in general, is

considered a goods-producing industry, commensurate with mining and construction (Zweig, 2000). The

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) defines manufacturing as the use of machines for the

transformation of a substance into a sellable product: as a result, manufacturing jobs provide a

5 Victor Allen’s A Marxist Critique and Alternative (1975) outlines a Marxist alternative to bourgeois social theory

6 Gibson Burrell & Gareth Morgan’s Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (1979) introduced a 2x2

matrix scheme to help classify and understand sociological theories based on four major paradigms: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist

12

necessary function within society. As a consequence of the overwhelming male participation in

traditional North American manufacturing (although some manufacturing sectors, such as the

manufacturing of textiles and garments employ large numbers of women), jobs have generally been

bequeathed masculine characteristics such as independence, rationality, assertiveness, hierarchy,

competition and task-orientation (Clason & Turner, 2011). Perhaps as a result, the impact of women in

factory work and manufacturing has not been researched in great depth within industrial sociology

(Abbot, 1993). Women have been, and to some extent, are still considered to be an anomaly within the

manufacturing industry in industrialized nations, despite recognition that they are underrepresented

(England, 2010). Many manufacturing organizations may be labelled as “gendered masculine” (Holmes,

2006, p. 10), often implicitly, with women and their contributions regarded as insignificant or

inconsequential to the organizational culture.

Lean methodology has been introduced into the healthcare sector on a substantial scale in order

to address quality of care processes and cost-related issues and in many ways fails to underscore the

significance of gender within this sector. The healthcare industry, contrary to traditional North

American manufacturing, is dominated by women, particularly in nursing, support, and administrative

roles (Dahlgaard, Pettersen, & Dahlgaard-Park, 2011). The high representation of women, coupled with

the dynamic and intensely social nature of caregiving and healthcare delivery highlights the problems

associated with lean implementation in non-manufacturing organizations. According to Feng and Tasi

(2012) healthcare delivery, specifically nursing, involves a complex process of induction into a wide

range of formal and informal norms, as well as an intensive, ongoing sharing of experiences and learning

situations amongst healthcare practitioners in order to provide adequate patient care in clinical settings.

Moreover, nurses and other healthcare practitioners are required to interact with patients, (often in

vulnerable states), coworkers, and various other healthcare professionals. The propensity of lean

practitioners to favour standardization of tasks, the implementation of workflow metrics, and a desire to

13

quantify efficiencies speaks to the productive goals of the methodology and can work in manufacturing

quite well because of the line-like method of production. It does not however address systems that have

substantial social components, or in the case of healthcare potentially uncertain, traumatic, and

challenging social conditions. Lean method, underrates the social nature of work, and the importance of

socialization in building and sustaining meaningful relationships, as well as ignores, production and

dissemination of organizational knowledge within highly social labour contexts.

3.2. Employee Issues (Non-Performance) Addressed in Literature

Of the substantial literature reviewed, the majority is dedicated to the study of lean from a

perspective of organizational effectiveness, rather than from a sociological, psychological, or

anthropological perspective. From an organizational standpoint, lean has been considered from a

number of different viewpoints, including the management of implementation, cost, efficiency

improvement, and sustainability. Far less research and scholarly study has been undertaken with

respect to the ‘softer’ human issues associated with lean implementations (Losonci, Demeter, and Jenei,

2011), and of the research completed, much remain theoretical or anecdotal rather than empirical

(Farris et al. 2009). An understanding of the “relationships between [Lean Production] implementation

activities and employee outcomes are not fully understood, and additional research is needed to

determine the manner in which lean system design produces the most positive outcomes” (Taylor et al.,

2013, p. 6607).

Paul Adler and Robert Cole (1993) conducted a comparative assessment of the relatively new

lean manufacturing methodology with a “human-centered” model championed by Volvo Motor

company at its Uddevalla and Kalmar automotive manufacturing plants with respect to which model

best stimulated continuous improvement while maintaining worker morale. The pair concluded that

lean production followed a “democratic Taylorism model” (p. 89) where workers participated in

14

designing their own job tasks, which helped democratize the workplace, and bolster employee

engagement. However, Adler and Cole found that lean production does not provide nearly as many

opportunities as Volvo’s Uddevalla model for the development of workers’ human potential. Adler and

Cole’s comparative study examined the social factors and popular misapprehensions about the sources

of employee motivation and of organizational learning. However, the study only assessed lean

production systems from a limited perspective, and the authors concluded that while the propensity

toward job enlargement in a lean system aided in stimulating employee engagement and bolstering

morale, the authors did not assess how knowledge is created or shared, how lean methodology affects

perceptions of truth, or how power relationships between employees, or between employees and

managers, are created or sustained.

The relentless pursuits of efficiency and the reduction of waste characteristic of lean

methodology through process simplification, short cycle times and machine-paced workflow integration,

coupled with the standardization of tasks and intense performance monitoring (Carter, Danford,

Howcroft, Richardson, Smith, & Taylor, 2013) have contributed to the dehumanization of work. Work is

both instrumental and formative―it has a significant influence on how individuals construct identity and

self-perception―and is ultimately situated in a social context. Meaningful work, that which is

considered gratifying, dignifying and autonomous, is created through social experience. Valuable social

experience is characterized by emotional support, affirmation of the self, appraisal of the situation,

instrumental support, and a free exchange of information. Although many lean practitioners advocate

job rotation, multi-skilling, and empowering teams, scholars such as Lewchuk and Robertson (1997)

have revealed contradictions in practice, including tighter supervision and management control, narrow

tasking, reduced involvement in decision making, and greater job strain. In addition to reports of

increased risk of injuries, physical, psychological, or psychosocial (Delbridge, 2000), lean often precludes

socialization as workers become increasingly alienated from their work (Carter et al., 2013).

15

Socialization at work is a normative process that allows workers to explore meaning and value of their

labour whilst simultaneously helping shape workplace culture. Through interaction and the process of

socialization, workers participate in addressing workplace issues and inequities, including gendered

problems, and allow for participative discourse on addressing those problems or limitations. The

socialization process in organizations has been seen as a function of participation, as individuals not only

acquire and assimilate knowledge, but participate in its creation and dissemination, shaping the

experience of work.

Just as Adler and Cole (1993) studied employee morale, Dharmasri Wickramasinghe and

Vathsala Wickramasinghe (2011) explored how a lean production environment influences employee

satisfaction and turnover in a manufacturing plant. Their findings indicated that job involvement

through participation “gives higher ownership of the process to employees” (p. 825), and employees will

effectively increase their level of job involvement if they “perceive that the organization cares about its

employees and values their contribution” (p. 827). The authors also identified an inverse relationship

between the level of job involvement and employee turnover, however, the influence of job

involvement on employee turnover has yielded conflicting findings in other studies. Karen Brown and

Terence Mitchell (1991) concluded that the work characteristics of lean implementation could have

detrimental effects on employees that would influence employee turnover, while Roel Schouteten and

Jos Benders (2004) reported that employees in a lean production environment had a low intention to

resign. Ultimately, the disparate findings by scholars may indicate that employee morale, job

satisfaction, and engagement may be influenced by factors other than the implementation of lean

methodology―how lean informs power, organizational culture, or the shared experience of work.

The impact of lean production principles on the experience of work in a production or

manufacturing environment frequently is an issue that polarizes scholars. Advocates of lean suggest

16

that team-based work organization at a primary level represents a reversal of Tayorist7 principles and

results in a “significant upskilling of production employees” (Womack & Jones, 1994). This assertion is

based on the assumptions that, under lean teams, employees are: (1) multifunctional (thereby

increasing task variety); (2) vested with greater responsibility for many tasks that were previously the

prerogative of specialist groups; and (3) able to contribute to task and organizational improvement via

group problem-solving activities. Such bottom-up methods, according to Delbridge et al. (2000), make

for “higher levels of responsibility and involvement as operators are ‘empowered’” (p. 1461).

Furthermore, scholars have suggested that if lean systems are properly implemented and sufficiently

supported, workers will be motivated to “contribute their discretionary effort to problem-solving if they

believe their individual interests are aligned with those of the company, and that the company will make

a reciprocal investment in their well-being (MacDuffie, 1995, p. 201). In contrast, detractors of lean

argue that many workers prefer traditional arrangements, and express little desire for tasks which are

more empowering (Vidal, 2007, p. 260). Moreover, it has been suggested that lean production may in

fact restrict individual autonomy as “collective autonomy” (Klein, 1989) is idealized. Team-based work

organization and participative decision-making may increase job satisfaction only in certain

circumstances, for certain organizations or industries, and only for certain individuals. There is no

consensus regarding the experience of lean, and no unified, shared empowerment or sense of increased

morale8 (Delbridge, 2000).

The analysis of employee empowerment―the subjective interpretation of autonomy and

control―has typically been situated within the context of structuralism. Employee

empowerment―increased autonomy, access to information, and authority―is considered as created

7 Taylorism, named for Frederick Taylor (1919), is a scientific management paradigm characterized by a centralist

control of the labour process in which tasks and job operations for the worker are planned and standardized for maximizing efficiency. 8 Delbridge, Lowe & Oliver (2000) focused on the perceptions amongst managers, team members and functional

specialists in an international study of automotive components manufacturing in nine industrialized nations.

17

through lean practices, phenomena and activities that serve as systems of signification. Structuralism

has informed a significant body of organizational theory, as it avers that events can only be fathomed as

a part of a basic network, or structure that produces, and reproduces, meaning. For individuals involved

in a lean system, meaning is created only in terms of a larger structure (the lean processes in which the

employee is a part), and only understood within that structure. Employee empowerment, then, is

perceived as universally attainable, regardless of gender, age, race, religion, or any other identity

characteristic. Substantive empowerment involves a number of factors such as increasing the abilities,

responsibilities, formal authority, effective capacity and involvement of broadly-skilled front-line

workers in problem-solving, decision making and continuous improvement. Structuralism, however, is

limited: it ignores the contingent and discursive construction of individual experiences of

empowerment. Post-structuralism, specifically post-structural feminism, emphasizes the social

construction of gendered subjectivities; rejecting the notion that employee empowerment is universally

attainable within a lean environment. According to Jones, Latham & Betta (2013) a significant gulf

between theoretical attempts at empowerment and actual empowerment exists in many organizations.

In fact, Jones, Latham & Betta (2013) find no support for the hypothesis that lean production empowers

workers, despite widespread claims by management across a variety of industries. From a post-

structural feminist perspective, true empowerment cannot be achieved within a lean system until the

underlying hegemony is addressed.

Overall, the review of research on lean manufacturing as it relates to employee empowerment,

job satisfaction, morale, and development has yielded scant and often contradictory findings. The

existing literature on lean ultimately suggests that there is no consensus regarding the extent to which,

and the manner in which, the adoption of lean methodology influences employee outcomes. Research

has demonstrated that characteristics such as the completeness, difficulty and monotony of the work,

level of workplace autonomy, the interaction potential in the work, and information

18

provision―timeliness, completeness and reliability―are important determinants of the experience of

working in a lean environment.

Research on employee experiences of lean manufacturing has not addressed intersectionality9,

knowledge creation, or the conceptualization of social identity structures. Prior attempts at

understanding employee satisfaction, empowerment, commitment, and perception have been limited in

scope and focus. Given the rapid pace of lean implementation in various industries―nearly 40 percent

of all US manufacturing companies describe lean manufacturing as their primary business strategy

(Keyes, 2013), and 60 percent adopted ‘continuous flow production’ practices―a greater understanding

of how lean influences individuals (and vice versa) will be required. Further, an understanding of how

intersectionality interacts within a lean framework will help understand, and ultimately, help alleviate

gender discrimination inherent in many industries and organizations. This provides a rationalization for

a feminist analysis, as the operation of power and influence within lean systems will contribute to the

construction of individual identity, ultimately shaping organizational behaviour and effectiveness.

4. Post-Structural Feminism

Post-structuralism exhibits a critical distrust concerning meta-narratives, such as structuralism,

transcendental reason, and the possibility of objective knowledge. Post-structural feminist theory

interrogates the constitution of the feminine as a universal concept within modernity, which posits a

universal representation of woman. Post-structural feminist theory provides a basis for a broad critique

of how knowledge is constructed within organizations, specifically, how subjectivities and the local

operation of power influence discourse, and ultimately sustain hegemonic power. Gendered

subjectivities are socially created, and are the product of instersectionality―the interactivity of social

identity structures such as race, class, and gender in fostering life experiences, especially experiences of

9 The concept of intersectionality refers to the interactivity of social identity structures such as race,

class, and gender in fostering life experiences, especially experiences of privilege and oppression (Gopaldas, 2013, p. 90).

19

privilege and oppression. Within a lean manufacturing context, the intersectionality within post-modern

feminism is principally informed by gender and power. Although other categories such as age, race,

religion, socio-economic status, et cetera, undoubtedly play a role in shaping the individual experiences

of lean manufacturing in the workplace, a broad critique is more suitable for a secondary analysis, as

little prior research has been completed with respect to intersectionality within lean workplaces.

Post-structural feminism acknowledges the power of language to shape thoughts and realities

and acknowledges that once discourse becomes normal or natural, it has the potential to uphold

structures of inequity.

According to Michael Foucault (1983), knowledge within organizations is exchanged between

individuals through regulated communications that are influenced by institutions and society. Foucault

writes that, rather than perceiving the “state [of the institution of lean manufacturing] as an entity

which has developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence,” it can be

regarded as “a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition:

that this individuality would be shaped in a new form and submitted to a set of very specific patterns”

(p. 783). It is impossible to isolate individuals from organizations, or the methodology, processes, and

practices which inform their job functions. It is only through deconstructing and challenging lean

methodology is it possible to understand how it marginalizes women, and protects male hegemony.

Exploring the impact of lean methodology on the construction of gender is a critical step in identifying

organizational inequity, ultimately in order to improve working conditions and evoke meaningful change

with respect to gender equality within organizations.

5. Drawing a Link between Lean and Gender-Based Power Relations

As a methodology, lean has contributed significantly to the discourse of organizational

management, influencing social construction in organizations―how employees perceive and experience

20

the organization, work, and ultimately, themselves as members. Lean represents both a rationalization

strategy for primary production and a normative management strategy simultaneously, contributing to

the creation of powerful corporate cultures and effective organization around core processes to create

value for customers (Johansson et al., 2013).

The favoured organizational form to support the lean concept is one which is flat and

integrated, where objective-oriented work teams engage in a substantial workplace learning. Work

teams tend to be embedded in strict, standardized settings of a production system. An important

tenement of objective-oriented work teams is the concept of self-management, which, according to

Harry Hummels & Jan de Leede (2000) entails “the promise of opening a dialogue between important

stakeholders, like workers, managers, executive directors, non-executive directors, unions,

shareholders, et cetera, with regard to morally relevant issues like health and safety issues, learning on

the job, product quality and liability, autonomous decision making, and employee ownership” (p. 76).

The growing popularity of work teams, particularly task-oriented teams, raises the topic of power.

According to Blumer, Green, Murphy, & Palmanteer (2007) power is inherent in any team system,

informing relationship management, the role of mentoring, the devising of appropriate boundaries, and

facilitating a sense of empowerment. Collaborative work teams aimed at providing a space for the

multiple voices of many different individuals interested in co-creating possibilities for continuous

improvement is largely at odds with traditional hierarchical, male-normed practices. Masculine-based

motivations within lean teams continue to be emphasized, such as rationality and a focus on tasks and

goals (Poole et al., 2004), suggesting that a feminist approach to teamwork, which “places emphasis on

giving a voice to all of the group members’ different points of view…through acknowledgment of

differential ideas and without an insistence that these differences be compromised” (Blumer et al.,

2007, p. 49), which is inherently at odds with traditional organizational hierarchy, tends to be unrealized

21

(Deflorin & Scherrer-Rathje, 2012). As long as work teams within a lean structure continue to exhibit

masculine traits, true empowerment of group members will likely remain elusive.

The concept of power is integral to feminist post-structuralism. It provides a lens that allows

researchers to identify the relations between people as dynamic, reciprocal and dependent on contact.

Michael Foucault (1983) asserts that power is a “regulated communication” or relation in which one

action may influence the action of theirs, for “what defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of

action which does not act directly and immediately on others” (p. 789). Rather, power acts upon an

individual’s actions. Socially constructed hierarchies within organizations tend to position men with

more power than women (Calas, Smircich & Bourne, 2009), as a result of cultural or institutional

barriers. According to Mills, Mills, Forshaw, & Bratton (2007) the great majority of Canadian women are

concentrated in clerical, the “pink collar” or sales and service occupations, and the jobs are generally

low paying. This feminization of low paid and low skilled jobs is the result of “resistance from some

elements of the workforce as well as institutional barriers” (p. 327). In addition, Mills et al. (2007) posit

that there remains a considerable disparity between the numbers of men versus the number of women

in management positions: in 2002, women constituted 46.1 percent of the Canadian workforce, but only

33.7 percent of senior management positions, and less than 1 percent of the top executives at Canada’s

largest organizations (p. 327).

Inequity in gender-based organizational power has contributed to institutionalized inequality in

pay,10 an inherent sexualisation of product advertising, and the perpetuation of sexual harassment

within organizational settings (Bobbitt-Zehler, 2011). Power contributes significantly to the

entrenchment of gender inequality and the marginalization of women within organizations.

Organizational arrangements create countless contexts of power inequity in which men tend to occupy

10

According to Mills et al. (2007) in 2004 the average female worker in Canada earned 81.6 cents for every dollar earned by the average man. Moreover, if earnings of men and women are directly compared, women’s earnings are at 63.9 percent of the average earnings of men, and the gap has widened since 1997.

22

most―if and sometimes the only―positions of power and authority. In many cases of sexual

harassment, for instance, organizational power is a factor “in that the woman is bothered by an

organizationally more powerful male and/or has to rely on a male power structure to intervene to

prevent harassment” (Torres, 2012, p. 38). Gender-based power in organizations has much further-

reaching effects, however. According to Patricia Amigot and Margot Pujal (2009), there exist two levels

of power’s operation and production within an organizational context: first, the production of the

sex/gender dichotomy and of the historical subjectivities within it; and, second, the production and

regulation of power relations between men and women. Both men and women, and the very existence

of the gender dichotomy, are configured in networks of power, and every individual, regardless of

gender, is subjected to its historical framework. Despite the fact that power is present in any

relationship, gender specifically functions to subordinate women to a far greater degree in all aspects of

organizational life than men (Amigot & Pujal, 2009). Gendered relations of power become manifested

within individual disposition, courses of action, and normalizing practices.

Organizational power structures, such as those rooted in gender, are inherently resisted,

however. Power “is a total structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it

induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more difficult” (Foucault, 1982, p. 220), but it never completely

determines all possibilities and alternatives. Resistance, then, is present in any relationship, albeit to

varying degrees. It is this inherent tension between subjection and the agency that repeatedly

“produces corporeality and forms of the subject without determining them” (Amigot & Pujal, 2009, p.

652). With respect to lean manufacturing, the tension between men and women may undermine

engagement, autonomy, team and individual interaction, and information provision as women resist

existing hegemonic power structures. Thomas Lawrence & Sandra Robinson (2007) contend that

workplace deviance―voluntary behaviour that violates significant organizational norms and this is

perceived as threatening the well-being of the organization or its members―as a typical form of

23

resistance to organizational power. Resistance often takes the form of absenteeism, withholding of

effort, property deviance (i.e. theft, sabotage, etc.), or may be expressed as psychological, verbal, or

physical violence in extreme cases. Resistance to power may manifest itself as a rejection of

organizational discourse, or structures of truth and knowledge.

6. The Language of Lean Manufacturing and Gender Construction

Post structural feminist theorists have suggested that the use of descriptive language yields

great power, and is one of the key contributing factors to women’s insecurity (Loonat, 2010).

Knowledge, power, and identity are constructed, in so far as they are representing a reality defined by

language. It is through language―often esoteric―that individuals and organizations constitute the

subject of their knowing, their subjectivities as knowers, what is important, and what is not. Language

thus informs gendered identities within organizational constructs. Language “confronts the

reproduction of power in society since language in and of itself is value-laden and has the power to

influence how we think, act, and design products and programs” (Torres, 2012, p. 34). The language of

lean is complex and arcane, derived from mathematical and statistical constructs. Terminology such as

Customer demand rate, Gage R&R, Kaizen, Kano Analysis, Xbar&R and Xbar&S Analysis are examples of

common lean idioms that reflect the values, beliefs, and practices of lean organizations and

practitioners. Through the use of lean terminology, individuals describe and shape identities and

interests in concert with those of others.

The question of how an objective social reality is constructed is answered, in part, by how

material objects, concepts, and processes are given meaning. Meaning ascription in turn provides an

insight into how organizations are constructed. Understanding how organizations―and the

methodologies that inform them―are constructed allows individuals to construct and reconstruct

aspects of reality that impinge on the relationships within the organization. Understanding how lean

24

concepts are constructed, as well as the context of development, allows individuals to frame their

perceptions of self with respect to truth, knowledge, and organizational discourse. The influence of

mathematics and statistics (Six Sigma11) on not only lean methodology, but the language of lean,

significantly influences the creation of shared knowledge. According to Steffens, Jelenec, and Noack

(2010), the “expectancy-value model of achievement-related choices posits that socialization processes

linked to gender play a crucial role for emerging domain-specific ability self-concepts” (p. 947). Self-

perceptions of ability, or self-concepts, have been shown to exert an influence on mathematics

achievement (Marsh & Yeung, 1997). Factors affecting gender differences in math-related ability self-

concepts are gender role stereotypes, cultural stereotypes of jobs, and gender roles. The detrimental

effect of math-gender stereotype salience on female students’ performance has been demonstrated,

referred to as stereotype threat (Steffens et al., 2010). Math-gender stereotypes experienced in youth

and adolescence may be reinforced through the language of lean: Dasgupta and Asgari (2004) have

demonstrated that implicit stereotypes often influence behaviour in the absence of awareness of that

impact; even if individuals are unaware they are holding the stereotype. Although typically not explicit,

it is likely that male hegemony is created and sustained through the very language of lean

manufacturing.

7. More of the Same?

Does lean manufacturing offer a reprise from traditional organizational methodologies and

paradigms that perpetuate male hegemony? Unfortunately, from a post-structural feminist perspective,

lean continues to perpetuate gender discrimination in organizations, or at least fails as a means of

subverting it. Although little formal research on lean manufacturing has been conducted with respect to

gender relations and power, there is no evidence to suggest that lean is resistant to hegemonic

11

11

Six Sigma is a meticulous, data-driven methodology that supports lean that aims at generating quasi-perfect production processes that would result in no more than 3.4 defects per 1 million opportunities.

25

masculinity, or masculinist power-based hierarchies. Although many aspects of the methodology,

including an emphasis on teamwork, participative decision-making and continuous improvement may

intuitively inform active resistance to traditional gendered hierarchies, the over-representation of men

engaged not only in manufacturing, but in a large number of disparate organizations and industries

ultimately hinders the capacity of women to challenge traditional discourses. It is evident that the

performativity of gender and hegemonic masculinity, namely masculine ways of interaction,

engagement, and communication pervade work practices, differently influencing the social realities of

work for men and women. The pervasiveness of male discourse in the construction of lean knowledge,

practices, and language is apparent: the historical development, adoption by US manufacturing

companies, and rapid growth within traditional organizations suggest that the masculine subjectivities

inherent in these organizations have simply been reproduced in lean methodology. Yulia Maleta (2011)

posits that “diverse backgrounds, knowledge and experiences of everyday life may influence the

identification and rationale of women in contexts and discourses comparatively influenced by dominant

social relations of power and hegemony” (p. 81). However, any system, organization, or philosophy

characterized is this manner would not only have to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of all

participants, but embrace a singular shared vision, vision, or purpose. In the case of lean, organizational

goals of increasing efficiency, productivity, and quality, while simultaneously decreasing waste and cost

are not necessarily the goals of employees, or those involved in a lean organization.

26

References

Abbott, A. (1993). The sociology of work and occupations. Annual Review Sociology, 19, 187-209.

Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. (1993). Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management

review, Spring 1993, 85-94.

Amigot, P., & Pujal, M. (2009). On power, freedom, and gender: A fruitful tension between Foucault and

feminism. Theory & Psychology, 19(5), 646-669.

Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Six of one and half dozen of the other: The gender subtext of

Taylorism and team-based work. Gender, Work & Organization, 5(1), 5-18.

Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 17(1), 56-72.

Blumer, M. L., Green, M. S., Murphy, M. J., & Palmanteer, D. (2007). Creating a collaborative research

team: Feminist reflections. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 19(1), 41-55.

Bobbitt-Zehler, D. (2011). Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional

policies, and gender composition of workplace. Gender & Society, 25(6), December 2011, 764-

786.

Brown, K.A., & Mitchell, T. R. (1991). A comparison of just-in-time and batch manufacturing: The role of

performance obstacles. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 906-917.

Calas, M. B., Smircich, L., & Bourne, K. A. (2009). Extending the boundaries: Reframing

“entrepreneurship as social change” through feminist perspectives. Academy of Management

Review, 34(3), 552-569.

Carter, B., Danford, A., Howcroft, D., Richardson, H., Smith, A., & Taylor, P. (2013). ‘Stressed out of my

box’: Employee experience of lean working and occupational ill-health in clerical work in the UK

public sector. Work, employment, and Society, 27(5), 747-767.

Cirque du Soleil. (n.d.). Retrieved January 2, 2014, from

http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/en/home/about-us/at-a-glance.aspx

Clayson, M. A., & Turner, L. (2011). Communicating manufacturing as masculine domain: How women

get noticed at work. Women & Language, 43.2, 41-59.

Cross, B. (2013). Lean innovation: Understanding what’s next in today’s economy. Boca Raton, FL: CRC

27

Press.

Cullinane, S., Bosak, J., Flood, P. C., & Demerouti, E. (2012). Job design under lean manufacturing and its

impact on employee outcomes. Organizational Psychology Review, October 2012, 1-21.

Dahlgaard, J. J., Pettersen, J., & Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2011). Quality and lean health care: A system for

assessing and improving the health of healthcare organizations. Total Quality Management,

22(6), 673-689.

Deflorin, P., & Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2012). Challenges in the transformation to lean production from

different manufacturing-process choices: A path-dependent perspective. International Journal of

Production Research, 50(14), 3956-3973.

Delbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (2000). Shopfloor responsibilities under lean teamworking. Human

relations, 53(11), 1459-1479.

Delbridge, R., Turnbull, P,. & Wilkinson, B. (1992). Pushing back frontiers: Management control and work

intensification under JIT/TQM regimes. New Technology Work and Employment, 7, 97-106.

England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149-166.

Farris, J. A., Van Aken, E. M., Doolen, T. L., & Worley, J. (2009). Critical success factors for human

resource outcomes in kaizen events: An empirical study. International Journal of Production

Economics, 117(1), 42-65.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and the power. In H.L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault:

Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gopaldas, A. (2013). Intersectionality 101. Journal pf Public Policy & Marketing, 32, 90-94.

Hale, L. (2013). A critical analysis of women in manufacturing. Race, Gender & Class, 20(2), 281-293.

Hassard, J. S. (2012). Rethinking the Hawthorne studies: The Western Electrical research in its social,

political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11), 1431-1461.

Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse.

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Hummels, H., & de Leede, J. (2000). Teamwork and morality: Comparing lean production and

sociotechnology. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 75-88.

Johansson, J., Abrahamsson, L. & Johansson, S. (2013). If you can’t beat them, join them? The Swedish

28

trade union movement and lean production. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(3), 445-460.

Jones, R., Latham, J., & Betta, M. (2013). Creating the illusion of employee empowerment: Lean

production in the international automobile industry. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 24(8), 1629-1645.

Keyes, J. (2013). The need for lean training. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 14(3), 78-83.

Kirsch, B. A., & Lengermann, J. J. (1973). An empirical test of Robert Blauner’s ideas on alienation in work

as applied to different jobs in a white-collar setting. Sociology & Social Research, 56(2), 180-194.

Lawrence, T. B., & Robinson, S. L. (2007). “Ain’t misbehaving:’” Workplace deviance as organizational

resistance. Organization Management Journal, 5, 181-183.

Lewchuk, W., & Robertson, D. (1997). Production without empowerment: Work re-organization from

the perspective of motor vehicle workers. Capital and Class, 63(3), 37-65.

Loonat, F. (2010). The power of description in manufacturing insecurity: From women’s insecurity to

human insecurity. South African Journal of Philosophy, 29(3), 253-273.

Losonci, D., Demeter, K., & Jenei, I. (2011). Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean

transformations. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1), 30-43.

MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic

and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations

Review, 48(2), 197-221.

Maleta, Y. (2011). Social dimension of gender and hegemony within environmental organisations and

communities. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations,

10(6), 79-91.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Casual effects of academic self-concept on academic achievement:

Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 41-51.

Niepce, W., & Molleman, E. (1996). A case study: Characteristics of work organization in lean production

and sociotechnical systems. International Journal of Operations Production Management, 16(2),

79-88.

Poole, M. S., Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., Moreland, r. L., & rohrbaugh, J. (2004). Interdisciplinary

perspectives on small groups. Small Group Research, 35(1), 3-16.

29

Repenning, N., & Sterman, J. (2001). Creating and sustaining process improvement. California

Management Review, Summer, 1-8.

Schouteten, R., & Benders, J. (2004). Lean production assessed by Karasek’s job demand-job control

model. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 25(3), 347-373.

Sim, K. L., & Chiang, B. (2013). Lean production systems: Resistance, success and plateauing. Review of

Business, 33(1), 97-110.

Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-

gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 947-963.

Taylor, A., Taylor, M., & McSweeney, A. (2013). Towards greater understanding of success and survival

of lean systems. International Journal of Production Research, 51(22), 6607-6630.

Teich, S. T., & Faddoul, F. F. (2013). Lean Management―The journey from Toyota to healthcare.

Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, 4(2), 1-9.

Torres, L. E. (2012). Lost in the numbers: Gender equity discourse and women of color in science,

technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). The International Journal of Science in

Society, 3(4), 33-45.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Women still underrepresented among

highest earners. Retrieved October 5, 2013 from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf.opbils55.pdf

Vidal, M. (2007). Lean production, worker empowerment, and job satisfaction: A qualitative analysis and

critique. Critical Sociology, 33, 247-278.

Wickramasinghe, D., & Wickramasinghe, V. (2011). Perceived organisational support, job involvement

and turnover intention in lean production in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Advanced

Manufacturing technology, 55, 817-830.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. (1994). From lean production to the lean enterprise. Harvard Business Review,

72, 93-103.