Abstract

PurposeWhy are some lean workfloor teams able to improve their already high performance, over time, and others not? By studying teams' and leaders' behaviour-value patterns, this abductive field study uncovers a dynamic capability at the team level.Design/methodology/approachVarious methods were employed over three consecutive years to thoroughly examine five initially high-performing lean workfloor teams, including their leaders. These methods encompassed micro-behavioural coding of 59 h of film footage, surveys, individual and group interviews, participant observation and archival data, involving objective and perceptual team-performance indicators. Two of the five teams continued to improve and perform highly.FindingsContinuously improving high lean team performance is found to be associated with (1) team behaviours such as frequent performance monitoring, information sharing, peer support and process improvement; (2) team leaders who balance, over time, task- and relations-oriented behaviours; (3) higher-level leaders who keep offering the team face-to-face support, strategic clarity and tangible resources; (4) these three actors' endorsement of self-transcendence and openness-to-change work values and alignment, over time, with their behaviours; and (5) coactive vicarious learning-by-doing as a “stable collective activity pattern” among team, team leader, and higher-level leadership.Originality/valueSince lean has been undertheorised, the authors invoked insights from organisational behaviour and management theories, in combination with various fine- and coarse-grained data, over time. The authors uncovered actors' behaviour-value patterns and a collective learning-by-doing pattern that may explain continuous lean team performance improvement. Four theory-enriching propositions were developed and visualised in a refined model which may already benefit lean practitioners.

Highlights

  • Many organisations around the globe engage in “lean” or “continuous improvement” (Balzer et al, 2019; Danese et al, 2018; Netland et al, 2015)

  • For each meeting, audit- or event-type practice, we indicated how frequent these practices were applied: D 5 Daily; W 5 Weekly; B 5 Bi-weekly; R 5 Regularly; to O 5 Occasionally

  • The two teams that consistently improved their already high performance level will be compared with the three lower-performing teams, in terms of their (1) higher-level leader, (2) team leader and (3) own behaviours and (4) values

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Many organisations around the globe engage in “lean” or “continuous improvement” (Balzer et al, 2019; Danese et al, 2018; Netland et al, 2015). The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.