The Human Resource Management
Implications of Lean Construction: Critical Perspectives and Conceptual Chasms
Stuart D. Green[1]
ABSTRACT
The human resource management (HRM) implications of lean construction are
considered from a critical perspective. Construction academics have strangely
ignored an extensive literature that equates lean production to a HRM regime of
control, exploitation and surveillance. The emphasis of lean thinking on
eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb into the
best practice agenda because it conforms to the existing dominant way of
thinking. In common with countless other improvement initiatives, the rhetoric
of lean construction is heavy in the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others
to be more efficient. In the absence of an explicit consideration of the HRM
implications, lean construction is doomed to repeat the mistakes of previous
instrumentalist improvement recipes. In the face of rapidly declining
recruitment rates for built environment courses, this will do little to attract
the intelligent and creative young people that the industry so badly needs.
The tradition of critical management studies (CMS)
remains controversial within the construction management research community.
Counter-criticisms offered by the proponents of lean construction are
considered and the contribution to knowledge is defended. There is a tendency
to suppress critical work on the basis that it lacks empirical evidence and is
one-sided in its argument. If these criteria were applied to the existing lean
construction literature, many of the seminal contributions would not have been
published. Whilst it is valid and important to criticise the methodology of
critical research, it must also be recognised that there are methodological
limitations associated with all research paradigms. Different methodologies
accentuate different aspects of reality.
KEY
WORDS
Lean construction, human
resource management, utilitarian instrumentalism, best practice, critical
management studies
INTRODUCTION
The publication of the report of the Construction Task Force Rethinking Construction (DETR, 1998) has
significantly shaped the current agenda for change in the UK construction
industry. The recommendations of Rethinking
Construction (commonly known as the 'Egan Report') have received an almost
unanimous endorsement from the bodies that shape policy for the construction
industry. Examples include the Construction Clients' Forum (CCF), the
Construction Industry Board (CIB) and the Government Construction Clients'
Panel (GCCP). The Movement for Innovation (M4I) was established as a
direct result of Rethinking Construction to
deliver the identified performance targets and to promote change. The Egan
agenda places an especially strong emphasis on the ideas of 'lean thinking',
drawing heavily on their supposed success in the car industry. The ideas of
'lean production' were originally encapsulated within the Toyota Manufacturing
System and are well articulated by Womack et
al (1990). Lean thinking subsequently became the generic term to describe
their universal application beyond manufacturing (Womack and Jones, 1996). The
ideas of lean thinking comprise a complex cocktail of ideas including
continuous improvement, flattened organisation structures, teamwork, the
elimination of waste, efficient use of resources and co-operative supply chain
management. Within the UK construction industry, the language of lean thinking
has since become synonymous with best practice.
The arguments presented in this paper are shaped by a
sense of unease regarding the one-sided nature of the current debate. The
specific purpose is to challenge the assumed neutrality of lean construction
and to highlight the potentially regressive impact on human resource management
(HRM). The development of a critical perspective is seen to be an essential
pre-requisite to the establishment of a more balanced and informed research
agenda. Within the broad domain of management studies, there has in recent
years been a significant degree of discussion regarding the validity and
importance of critical research (e.g. Alvesson and Willmott, 1996; Alvesson and
Deetz, 2000; Burrell, 2001; Fournier and Grey, 2000). This has lead to the
emergence of an identifiable sub-discipline labelled 'critical management
studies' (CMS). CMS is undoubtedly a fragmented and contested domain that covers
a multitude of ideas and a plurality of intellectual traditions (Fournier and
Grey, 2000). Nevertheless, the emergence of CMS has enriched academic debate
and provided an important counter-balance against the heavy managerialist bias
within the business school environment. In
contrast, CMS has had little recognition within the construction management
research community. Given this lack of exposure amongst construction academics,
particular attention is given to the counter-criticisms that are often directed
at critical work. It is conceded to be important that critical researchers make
no claim to have a 'monopoly on the truth'. Different research methodologies
will inevitably accentuate different aspects of reality. The development of a
critical research perspective is ultimately justified in terms of the wider
cause of methodological reflexivity. Whilst it is recognised that
critical work is often associated with the Frankfurt School (Held, 1980), the
author makes no claim to be theoretically consistent with any single tradition
of critical thought.
HRM IN THE UK CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY
There is an established dichotomy in the HRM literature between the
'hard' model, reflecting utilitarian instrumentalism, and the 'soft' model
reflecting developmental humanism. The hard model of HRM sees humans as a
resource to be 'provided and deployed' as necessary to achieve organisational
objectives. In contrast, the soft model of HRM treats human resources as valued
assets who offer a source of competitive advantage. In simple terms, the former
comprises 'command and control' and the latter 'empowerment and commitment'.
This dichotomy is undoubtedly an over-simplification of a complex field where
rhetoric and reality are difficult to separate (Legge, 1995). Many
organisations undoubtedly apply elements of both. Companies are also often fond
of dressing up hard HRM in a soft rhetoric (Truss et al, 1997). The key distinction lies in whether the emphasis is
placed on the human, or the resource (Guest, 1987; Storey, 1992). The dichotomy
between hard and soft HRM is a direct descendant of McGregor's (1960) Theory X
and Theory Y.
Several previous studies have contended that the
dominant culture of the construction industry consistently emphasises the hard
model of HRM. The 1998 Workplace Employee Relation Survey (Cully et al, 1999) compared three measures of employee participation across
twelve industrial sectors: (i) non-managerial participation in problem-solving
groups, (ii) operation of suggestion schemes and (iii) formal survey of
employee attitudes during the last five years. In the construction industry,
participation in problem-solving groups occurred in only 21% of workplaces.
This was lower than any other sector with the exception of 'other community
services' (17%). The construction industry was bottom in the other two
categories by a significant margin. Whilst the high degree of sub-contracting
in the construction industry may account in part for these results, research by
Druker et al (1996) concludes that
the hard model of HRM dominates not only for the construction labour force, but
also for professional and managerial staff. Coffey and Langford (1998) further
observe a low level of employee participation in construction, whilst
concluding that there are no inherent reasons that prevent effective
participation, even at trade level. The European survey conducted by Price
Waterhouse/Cranfield (Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994) showed that the status and
influence of HRM on corporate decision making was lower in the UK construction
industry than in other European construction industries. These results confirm
Hillebrandt and Cannon's (1990) previous findings on the low status of the personnel
function within UK contractors. Recent research into career opportunities for
women in construction companies has further pointed to a widespread
discriminatory culture in the UK construction industry (Dainty et al, 2000).
The conclusion that emerges from the above is clear. The
UK construction industry is characterised by an institutionalised regressive
approach to HRM. The human resource is primarily conceptualised as a cost. This
long-standing allegiance to hard HRM explains the popularity of management
improvement recipes based on metaphors such as 'cutting out the waste', 'belt
tightening' and 'becoming lean'. The question that arises is the extent to
which the current vogue for lean construction will serve to reinforce the
industry's established culture of 'command and control'.
AN INDUSTRY IN CRISIS
The dominance of Hard HRM in the construction industry goes some way
towards explaining the current recruitment crisis. Student applications for
built environment courses, including architecture, surveying, planning and
civil engineering fell by 21% between 1994 and 1997 (Gann and Salter, 1999).
Construction companies and professional firms find it increasingly difficult to
attract the intelligent, creative young people that the industry badly needs.
Other industries consistently offer better salaries, better job satisfaction,
increased job security and more enlightened approaches to HRM. Whilst it is
true that senior industrialists and government representatives increasingly
endorse the rhetoric of Soft HRM, there is little real evidence of any
significant shift in the industry's default model of HRM. Regressive attitudes
to HRM are so embedded within the UK construction industry they will not be
easily changed. It is the dominant culture of 'command and control' that
determines the agenda for change as advocated by industry leaders. The problems
of the construction industry are invariably blamed on impediments to machine
efficiency. Progressive improvement initiatives repeat familiar calls for 'attitudinal
and cultural improvement' whilst advocating that others should become more
efficient at meeting the efficiency targets of the technocratic elite. Rarely
is there any consideration of the externalities that lie beyond the narrow
domain of instrumental rationality. Even supposedly enlightened practices such
as partnering and TQM are ultimately judged in accordance with their
contribution to efficiency. Employees are continually conceptualised as
cogwheels in a remorseless machine. In the UK construction industry,
utilitarian instrumentalism reigns supreme. The primary source of competitive
advantage is invariably equated with cost efficiency. There is little
recognition of human resources as a source of competitive advantage. None of
this does anything to attract new talent into the construction industry, or to
empower the existing human resources.
PERPETUATING THE DOWNWARD
CYCLE
The rhetoric of improving efficiency by the elimination of waste is
undeniably attractive in the short term. However, the long-term effect will be
to perpetuate the construction industry's downward cycle whilst reinforcing its
reputation for unrewarding careers. Long-term competitiveness and
sustainability are too easily sacrificed for the sake of short-term efficiency.
Whilst this perennial short-termism acts against the development of the
industry as a whole, it continues to serve the immediate interests of the
industry's technocratic elite. From a critical perspective, the last thing that
current industry leaders need is a flood of 'empowered' employees teeming with
innovative ideas. Far better to impose a regime of management-by-stress whereby
employees are constantly under pressure to meet ever-increasing efficiency
targets. Each successive financial cycle heralds a new drive towards cost
efficiency. Many construction companies seem to be in a perpetual state of
downsizing to satisfy the appetite of financial analysts. The increasingly
short-term focus imposed by the marketplace inevitably reinforces the trend
towards management-by-stress and regressive approaches to HRM. Such are the
barriers to innovation in the construction industry.
As a caveat to the above, it should be emphasised that
there are important exceptions. This is especially true for some of the UK's
design practices and engineering consultancies. There are a few notable firms
that compete very successfully internationally and have invested heavily in
knowledge-based services. The competitive advantage of these firms is based on
their employees and their capacity for innovation. Such firms seek to recruit
and retain highly capable people by providing them with rewarding and
challenging careers. Central to the attraction of such organisations is the
extent of job variation and the associated opportunities for continuous
personal development. Strangely, the agenda for change within the UK
construction industry does not look to its own success stories as exemplars of
good practice. Instead, the industry is exhorted to follow the precedent of the
motor industry. This advice remains intact despite continuing concerns
regarding productivity in the UK motor industry. The recent Rover debacle is the latest in a long line of
well-published management disasters in an industry characterised by poor
industrial relations and lack of investment. The primary lesson to be extracted
from the UK motor industry is that the rhetoric of gurus such as Womack and
Jones (1996) should be treated with some considerable degree of caution. It is
also notable that the Competition Commission has recently found the UK motor
industry guilty of price fixing and anti-competitive behaviour. It hardly
qualifies therefore as an exemplar of customer responsiveness. The rush towards
lean construction seems equally bizarre in the light of the motor industry's
questionable track record in HRM.
THE HRM IMPLICATIONS OF LEAN
PRODUCTION
Whilst strangely ignored by lean construction
researchers, there is a considerable body of research that equates the
implementation of lean production to regressive policies of human resource
management (HRM) (e.g. Garrahan and Stewart 1992; Hampson et al, 1994; IPD 1996; Rehder, 1994; Turnbull, 1988). The
literature warning of the potentially adverse implications of lean methods on
the quality of working life is so extensive it is difficult to understand why
it has been so systematically ignored. The critical literature on the Japanese
model of lean production dates from Kamata 's (1982) description of how
Toyota's single-minded drive for success in the 1970s was accompanied by
significant personnel deprivation on the part of the workforce. More recently,
Sugimoto (1997) describes how the term karoshi
is in common use amongst Japanese workers to describe sudden deaths and severe
stress resulting from overwork. Benders (1996), Grönning (1995) and Rehder
(1994) all refer to growing disillusionment in Japan amongst employees and
increasing resistance from trade unions.
Hutchinson
et al (1996) report a survey that
asked Japanese parents if they would advise their children to work in the
automobile industry. Only 4.5% of respondents replied yes (Nomura, 1992). The
most frequently cited reasons were as follows:
·
pay
too low for intense work (43%);
·
high
work intensity (41%);
·
onerous
shift system (40%);
·
much
work on holidays and overtime (36%);
·
unfriendly
personnel practices (33%).
Given the UK construction industry's difficulties in
attracting high quality personnel, it therefore seems strange to model the
agenda for change on the Japanese automobile industry. Criticisms are not limited
to production plants in Japan, but also extend to overseas transplants. Fucini
and Fucini (1990) point to poor safety standards, stress of work, loss of
individual freedom and discriminatory employment practices at Mazda's US
production plant in Michigan. Garrahan and Stewart (1992) and Turnbull (1988)
provide similar criticisms of Nissan's plant in the UK, held up as an exemplar
by the Egan Report (DETR, 1998). According to Garrahan and Stewart (1992)
Nissan's supposed regime of flexibility, quality and teamwork translates in
practice to one of control, exploitation and surveillance. Numerous other
studies have demonstrated that the implementation of lean methods leads to work
intensification (Parker and Slaughter, 1998; Cappelli and Rogovsky, 1994). On a
similar theme, Berggren (1993) equates lean production with 'mean production':
"…unlimited
performance demands, the long working hours and requirements to work overtime
on short notice, the recurrent health and safety complaints, the rigorous
factory regime that constitutes a new and very strict regime of
subordinations".
Howell and Ballard (1999) suggest that lean production
techniques are themselves neutral. In an abstract sense, this is probably true.
However, the implementation of lean construction in real contexts can never be
neutral. Every organisational change initiative inevitably disturbs the status quo. Whilst theories of
production can be developed in isolation of HRM considerations, they must be
implemented in the context of real organisations. Organisational change
initiatives are inextricably wrapped around an implicit HRM policy. Existing
power structures are changed with direct implications for individual job
boundaries and the quality of working life. Frederick Taylor (1911) famously maintained
that 'scientific management' was neutral whilst leaving others to worry about
the dehumanising side effects of treating people as mindless cogwheels in a
remorseless machine. The relationship of lean thinking to Taylorism is well
described by Dohse et al (1985):
"Toyotism is…not
an alternative to Taylorism but rather a solution to its classic problem of the
resistance of the workers to placing their knowledge of production in the
service of rationalisation."
Notions of empowerment and participation are therefore
carefully controlled. Employees are only 'empowered' to implement imposed
targets more efficiently. They are not empowered to participate in the process
by which targets are set or in the allocation of the proceeds of any resultant
efficiency gains.
Whilst some of the above
sources are undoubtedly somewhat one sided, this is equally true for the more
evangelical advocates of lean methods such as Womack and Jones (1996) and the
Egan Report (DETR, 1998). The most worrying thing is that the debate has not
even started. It is of course conceivable that lean construction could be implemented in accordance with
Soft HRM. However, given the dominant culture of the UK construction industry,
this is always likely to be the exception rather than the general case. What is
currently so noticeably absent is any empirical research data on how lean
construction is implemented. Strangely, there seems to be little interest in
research of this nature. International researchers in lean construction seem
content to develop theories of production entirely in the abstract, leaving
others to worry about the dehumanising side effects.
THE INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY
OF BEST PRACTICE
The extensive critical literature that equates lean methods to regressive
HRM practices has not prevented lean construction from becoming an established
component of construction best practice (CBPP, 1998). It would seem that lean
construction has been accepted as an essential part of best practice on the
recommendation of the Egan Report (DETR, 1998) in the absence of any supporting
evidence. There is certainly an alarming absence of convincing case studies.
Such case studies as do exist are largely anecdotal. Lean construction is
seemingly a good idea primarily because Sir John Egan and the technocratic
elite say it is a good idea. The task of the research community is apparently
limited to supporting the prejudices of current industry leaders and thereby
maintaining the status quo. Of course, the emphasis of lean thinking on
eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb into the
best practice agenda because it confirms with the existing dominant way of
thinking. Best practice rarely strays from the narrow domain of instrumental
rationality in that it is invariably concerned only with the most efficient
means of achieving a given end. Economic externalities such as traffic
congestion, pollution and the human cost of regressive management regimes
consistently fall outside the adopted frame of reference. The limitation of
'best practice' to issues of instrumental rationality is well illustrated by a
recent flyer published by the Construction
Best Practice Programme (CBPP):
Best Practice = Better
Profits
·
Find
out more about the relationship between Best Practice and improving profit
levels.
·
Learn
how to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve competitiveness.
·
Hear,
first hand, from organisations that have benefited from implementing Best
Practice.
·
Discover
the bottom line benefits from putting the theory into practice.
The above illustrates the way in which current
conceptualisations of best practice are invariably limited to narrow issues of
instrumental rationality. Note also that the CBPP is funded by the DETR to the
tune of £6M over three years (DETR, 1999). Why the UK taxpayer is being asked
to help make the corporate sector more efficient remains unclear. The
abandonment of the principles of the free marketplace seems strangely at odds
with the frequently espoused doctrine of neoliberalism. The reality is that free-market
principles seldom apply to the large organisations that seek to influence
industrial policy. The status of BAA as a privatised quasi-monopoly did not
prevent Sir John Egan from preaching best practice to the construction
industry. The trend towards corporatism is readily illustrated by the way large
organisations seek increased control through partnering and integrated
supply-chains. Come back Adam Smith, all is forgiven.
The above analysis provides a
different starting point from which to understand 'best practice'. There is a
subtle process at work across the numerous committees that shape the best
practice agenda. It is not necessary to believe that such committees
deliberately act to further their own vested interests; merely that they take no
action that goes against their interests. The end result is the same. It then
becomes understandable why definitions of performance improvement rarely stray
beyond the domain of instrumental rationality. 'Best practice' is judged by the
extent to which it serves the interests of the technocratic elite. Whilst it is
true that the CBPP flags the importance of 'developing people', the caveat is
quickly added that the effectiveness of training should be measured by its
contribution to business performance. In other words, training is only
worthwhile if it contributes to company profits. Metaphors such as 'teamwork'
and 'customer-responsiveness' mask the reality that employees are required to
act as mindless cogwheels in a remorseless machine. There is little pretence
that any efficiency gains will be shared equally amongst the diversity of
stakeholders in the construction industry. Targets abound for reducing the cost
of construction and enhancing profitability. Lean construction thereby becomes
the latest manifestation of a long established trend. The rhetoric is heavy in
the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others to be more efficient. It is taken
for granted that people are compliant, predicable and willing to be programmed
in accordance with the requirements of a rationally designed system. The advice
on implementing lean construction offered by Howell and Ballard (1998)
exemplifies these assumptions. The alleged 'new way' of managing construction
would seem depressingly familiar to the subordinates of Frederick Taylor
(1911). Nothing really changes.
Many will feel undoubtedly
uncomfortable with the suggestion that the financial rewards from productivity
initiatives are not shared equally with the workforce. Unfortunately, the
available evidence would seem to support the above diagnosis. To consider the
US statistics, during the 1990s executive pay jumped 535% (before adjusting for
inflation). The growth in worker pay during the same period was 32%, which
barely outpaced inflation at 27.5% (Anderson et al, 2000). The figures for the UK display a similar rapid
increase in wage inequality since 1978 (Machin, 1996). The available statistics
are therefore in direct conflict with the assumption that the rewards of
industrial innovation are shared equally. If such issues are not addressed
explicitly, it would seem inevitable that any increased profits realised from
lean construction will be distributed in accordance with the established norm.
RESEARCH ON THE RATIONAL HIGH
GROUND
The preceding discussion provides a very different perspective on the
mechanisms that have generated the current interest in lean construction. The
lean construction literature consistently reduces organisational complexities
to a mechanistic quest for efficiency. The intellectual origins are shared with
the broader disciplines of production engineering, operational research and
systems engineering. All of these are worthy areas of academic endeavour, but
none are ever neutral in their implementation. Rarely have lean construction
researchers descended from the rational high ground into the swampy lowland of
human affairs where messy and confusing problems defy technical solution
(Schön, 1987). The contribution of Koskela (2000) represents a significant
intellectual achievement, but rarely does he descend from the level of high
theoretical abstraction. Further important contributions have been made by
Howell and Ballard of the Lean
Construction Institute (LCI) (e.g. Ballard and Howell, 1997) and Tommelein
(e.g. Tommelein, 1998). These US-based contributors draw heavily on the
tradition of production engineering and are primarily concerned with the 'physics of production in the service of
higher performance' (Howell and Ballard, 1999). The domain of enquiry is
invariably limited to instrumental rationality and as such provides no
challenge to the industry's dominant ideology of utilitarian instrumentalism.
Such research therefore passes the basic test of 'best practice'; others must
become more efficient in serving the interests of the industry's technocratic
elite. Tommelein has also done much useful work in supply-chain mapping and
simulation, although consideration of the HRM implications of lean construction
is once again notable by its absence. The dominant theme of all these sources
is the quest for optimisation with associated assumptions of scientism and the
treatment of people as passive objects. The current research agenda notably
ignores the meaning and experience of lean construction for the employees. The
possibility of employee intransigence born from the failure of previous
top-down Taylorist management initiatives is not recognised. From the
perspective of the workforce, the rhetoric of 'mapping value', optimising flow'
and 'endeavouring for perfection' must seem depressingly familiar. Whilst not
addressing HRM issues directly, the contribution of Seymour (1999) to the
development of a sociological perspective on lean construction nevertheless
warrants mention as a notable exception to the general trend.
The tendency of international researchers to ignore the
HRM implications of lean construction is also reflected amongst many that have
advocated lean methods in the UK (DETR, 1998; Flanagan, et al 1998; Saad and Jones, 1998). When issues of HRM are raised
they tend to be at the level of the team, rather than being treated as issues
of strategic significance. This tendency is notable within the people
management research agenda of the Agile
Construction Initiative (ACI) at the University of Bath (Hall, 1998). As
with other generic notions of best practice, effective teamwork is seemingly
judged by the extent to which it meets the needs of operational efficiency.
Convincing empirical research from the automotive sector suggests that lean
teamwork tends to occur within highly standardised and routinised work regimes
(Delbridge, et al, 2000). As such, it
offers no advance in terms of worker autonomy. The occasional lip-service given
to teamwork within the lean construction literature does little to dispel the
suspicion that the lean model of 'teamworking' ultimately equates with
compliance and conformity.
COUNTER CRITICISMS
Given the limited tradition of critical work within the domain of
construction management, it is necessary to acknowledge some of the
counter-criticisms that are likely to be directed at the argument developed in
this paper. The review that follows summarises the most common counter-criticisms
directed at critical research. It is of course important that all research is
subject to criticism. It is especially important that critical researchers are self-critical. Unfortunately, the debate
regarding the validity of critical research within construction management
often never progresses beyond simple rejection. This is to the detriment
of construction management research internationally.
Some of the counter-criticisms levelled at critical work are fatuous and can be
dealt with easily. Others are more philosophical and can never be entirely
resolved. Nevertheless, making such counter-criticisms explicit serves to
explain some of the assumptions of critical research and to clarify its
contribution to knowledge. It also serves to highlight some of the schisms and
conceptual chasms that fragment the slippery domain of critical management
studies (CMS).
Contribution
to knowledge
Some observers find critical
research to be overly 'negative'. The argument is that research should seek to
move the industry forward, rather than deconstruct the contributions of others.
Hence critical work is not recognised as a valid contribution to knowledge.
Such a view reflects an instrumental and uni-dimensional view of knowledge.
Within the physical sciences, it is reasonable to assume that knowledge can be
accumulated into a single coherent structure (notwithstanding the occasional
Kuhnian paradigm shift). This is not the case for the social sciences where
irresolvable schisms abound (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Of course, within the
physical sciences there is an ultimate arbiter in Nature. In contrast, within
management studies the subject of study is undeniably socially constructed.
Knowledge within the social sciences often comprises an understanding of
different insights provided from different theoretical perspectives. To develop
an appreciation that such insights are not necessarily reconcilable is part of
being knowledgeable. The argument is well-summarised by Alvesson and Deetz
(2000):
"Research…..may aid human development by
highlighting the precarious and debatable nature of knowledge rather than
unidimensional and accumulative 'truths'."
Exposure of false gurus and
unfounded propaganda is seen to be an important role of the academic. Within
the construction management academic community, researchers are frequently too
accepting of the policy prescriptions advocated by governments and industry
leaders. In the absence of critical orientation in research, academics are
consigned merely to reproduce established conventions that maintain the status quo. Critical research therefore
seeks to challenge the way in which management studies subordinate knowledge to
efficiency of production (Fournier and Grey, 2000). Whilst it is true that
management research is generally normative, this is by no means pre-determined.
Universities have a broader responsibility to focus on the externalities that
lie beyond the instrumental rationality of 'improving efficiency'.
One-sided
view
Critical research is often
criticised for being one-sided. This paper would be rejected by many on the
basis that it addresses only the potential negative aspects of lean construction.
Strangely, such commentators feel quite comfortable that 95% of the lean
construction literature addresses only the potential positive aspects.
Different standards seemingly apply to critical research. Given the huge
imbalance of the existing literature, the development of a critical perspective
is extremely important in developing a better overall balance.
Leaving aside the
issue of double standards, the point of primary importance is that researchers
should be self-conscious of the assumptions of their adopted position. Every
research methodology possesses limitations and assumptions. This applies to
critical research to no less an extent than to other research paradigms.
Different research methodologies will accentuate different aspects of reality. Critical
research is undoubtedly one-sided, but it is at least self-consciously one-sided. This is more than can be said for the
popularist rhetoric of lean construction. Philosophical and methodological
reflexivity is central to the critical project (Fournier and Grey, 2000). It is
not an issue of drawing battle lines between positivistic studies and critical
work. The point is that the positivism of the mainstream is rarely made
explicit and defended. It is further notable that interpretive researchers such
as Seymour (1999) tend to justify the need for ethnographic research vis-à-vis
the limitations of positivist research. Such justifications invariably neglect
criticisms directed at ethnographic research from critical perspectives.
Whilst it is
valid and important to criticise the methodology of critical research, it must
also be recognised that there are methodological limitations associated with
all research paradigms. Critical researchers are probably more careful than
most in emphasising their adopted position. The author considers it important
that no claims are made to possess a monopoly on the truth. The underlying
belief is that reality is multi-perspective in nature and that researchers must
seek insights from different theoretical perspectives. A growth in critical
research will serve to provide a better overall balance within the construction
management community. At present, the community is far too strongly orientated
to the needs of management. This orientation militates against a balanced research
agenda. Researchers should have at least some concern for the victims of lean
construction rather than limiting the domain of interest to 'increasing
efficiency'. There is an important distinction between research of management and research for management.
There
is no alternative
Some commentators equate any
attempt to criticise lean construction with a general critique of the
'capitalist model of production'. To criticise lean methods is therefore a
pointless exercise in the face of an irresistible inevitability. This point of
view is often encapsulated in the expression 'there is no alternative' (TINA).
Such counter-criticisms would seem to depend upon a homogeneous view of the
'capitalist model' and a rather depressing fatalism regarding our assumed
inability to change it. The author's contention is that capitalism comes in a
myriad of forms and can be implemented in a myriad of different ways. For
example, there is a significant difference between the laissez-faire capitalism
of the 'Washington Consensus' and the Keynesian model of Bretton Woods. Other
examples include the mercantalist model of the 19th Century and the
distinctive variants currently operated in Russia, Japan and Germany. Whilst it
is true that the so-called Washington Consensus is becoming increasingly
dominant, such structures are by no means pre-determined or inevitable. All
models of capitalism are socially constructed and therefore subject to
re-negotiation. Even during the high point of laissez-faire capitalism in 19th
Century Britain, progressive thinkers such as Joseph Rowntree at York and
Robert Owen at New Lanark operated exemplary factory communities. Production
systems continue to lie at different points along the HRM continuum. The
argument is that unless the HRM implications of the lean model are made
explicit, it will inevitably be implemented in accordance with the construction
industry's default recipe. In the long-term this will not only be to the
detriment of employees, but will also impede the industry's economic performance.
Marxism
v postmodernism
Directly associated with the
preceding 'TINA' argument is a tendency to stifle meaningful debate by
labelling all criticism as Marxist. In the author's experience, this response
tends to come from academics rather than industrialists. This is strange given
that academics would normally be expected to be more supportive of the need for
criticism. In the context of methodology, criticism is an essential activity.
It is not necessary to be a disciple of Popper to recognise the role of
critique in the progression of knowledge. To dismiss all criticism as 'Marxist'
is to avoid debate and thereby limit the progression of knowledge. Whilst the
Frankfurt School of the 1930s may have had strong Marxist leanings, this is not
true of modern critical writers who draw from a plurality of intellectual
traditions. Many critical researchers rely on postmodernist notions of
organisation, emphasising the constructed nature of reality through language.
For many, Foucault is a much more powerful underlying influence than Marx. A
Foucaudian approach would seek to sensitise people to the pervasive nature of
power-based discourse. This is in contrast to the emphasis on direct coercion
and the structural differences between capital and labour found in classical
Marxism. It cannot be denied that there is a significant schism within CMS
between these two points of view. Nevertheless, the debate in recent years has
moved beyond these two polarities (Fournier and Grey, 2000). Whilst the
emergence of any unitary position is likely to remain illusive, the ongoing
debate enhances methodological reflexivity whilst addressing important ethical
issues associated with critical work. Ultimately, individuals tend to adopt
positions with which they feel comfortable. The present author certainly feels
uncomfortable with structural Marxism and its underlying assumptions of
rational positivism. He would therefore tend to align himself with the
relativist tradition of postmodernism, whilst retaining on awareness of the
dangers of moral nihilism. It must be recognised that critical research in
construction management will never provide an easy option. But a continued
blind allegiance to empiricism is not a viable option.
Empirical
evidence
The above discussion raises a
further common counter-criticism that is often directed at critical research.
There are some who would seek to reject the arguments presented in this paper
on the basis that they are not supported by empirical evidence. Within the
context of lean construction, it is necessary to point out that there is again
an implied double standard. If the criterion of empirical evidence were applied
to the lean construction literature as a whole many of the seminal
contributions would never have been published. It should be noted that lean
construction is in itself a theoretical construct. Koskela (2000) has
championed the cause of theorising in respect of production. His work in the
development of theory is widely recognised to be of central importance amongst
lean construction researchers (e.g. Seymour, 1999). Strangely, the same degree
of importance is not attached to the cause of theorising in respect of the HRM
implications of lean construction. Some theories are seemingly more acceptable
than others.
Notwithstanding
the above, it must be conceded that critical researchers are faced with
significant problems in collecting empirical evidence that is undistorted by
the guiding theoretical framework. Nevertheless, such difficulties are by no
means unique to critical research. Positivist and interpretive research are
both prone to systematic distortion through unconscious selectivity. For
example, ethnographic researchers are often faced with insurmountable
challenges in collating the huge richness of available empirical material
without imposing a filtering system (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). It is therefore
inevitable that the pre-existing 'mental models' of researchers will influence
the reported findings. What researchers give attention to is shaped by what
they look for. From this perspective, theorising and empirical research are
essential parts of the same project.
In evaluating the
contribution of critical research, it is important to remember that all
research methodologies possess limitations and impose distortions. It is
therefore important that insights are gained from different theoretical
perspectives. In social science, different theories represent different ways of
seeing. Rather than arguing that one research methodology is 'better' than
another, it is perhaps more useful to understand different theories as
different lenses that accentuate different aspects of reality. The choice of
theory therefore depends upon what the researcher wants to pay attention to.
The construction management community has to date neglected critical theory and
therefore underplayed the importance of vested interests and shaping
ideologies. It is not however advocated that everybody should suddenly adopt critical theory. The argument in
favour of critical research should be coupled with an overriding commitment to
methodological pluralism.
Returning to the
theme of empirical evidence, it is notable that the majority of the arguments
presented in this paper concern the selectivity of the literature. It is a
matter of fact that the conventional
discourse on lean construction ignores the extensive critical literature on
lean methods. The argument regarding the operation of vested interests and the
underlying influence of managerial ideology is presented as one possible explanation of why the
existing literature is so highly selective. Others are welcome to provide
alternative explanations, but the facts of the case cannot be ignored. Given
the significant amount of public funding that supports the propagation of best
practice, it is pertinent to ask where the onus of proof should lie. To
criticise critical research for 'relying too much on rhetoric and not enough on
evidence' is to duplicate exactly the argument directed at the best practice
literature on lean construction. Nevertheless, such reminders of the dangers of
engaging solely in rhetorical argument are important. What is ultimately
required is an appropriate balance between critical orientation and a sensitive
interest in empirical research. Too much of the former leads to elitism and too
much of the latter limits researchers to the local and the trivial (Alvesson
and Deetz, 2000).
Elitism
Perhaps the most difficult
counter-criticism to deal with is the accusation that critical research is
elitist. Some feel uncomfortable with the right of researchers to seek to
influence reality by the propagation of a critical argument. The trouble with
this line of argument is that it could equally be applied to those that
propagate the conventional discourse on lean construction. It is pertinent to
repeat that critical research is at least self-conscious and open in its
one-sidedness. Nevertheless, there is undeniably a central contradiction to a
critical position that assumes weakness in the reasoning powers of the very
people who it hopes to empower. Critical approaches also tend too often to see
dominant interest groups as coherent entities that act intentionally.
The danger of
conceptualising dominant interest groups as singular entities should be a
constant concern to critical researchers. If such groups are crystallised too
rigidly then critical thinking may indeed regress to 'old-fashioned' structural
Marxism. Elite groups have always been much more open to new arrivals than
Marxists like to admit. It is also important to recognise that elite groups may
have internalised ideologies that act against their own interests (Alvesson and
Deetz, 2000). For example, the continued propagation of regressive HRM
approaches in the construction industry will ultimately reduce sustainability
and long-term profitability. In this way, dominant interest groups may also
derive benefit from critical research.
The criticism of
elitism is perhaps best countered by an active policy of engaging with
practising managers whilst avoiding directive statements of what they should do. It is clearly also important
that critical researchers remain self-conscious of their adopted theoretical
position and the associated assumptions. It is especially important to make
clear that no monopoly is claimed on the truth and to recognise the need for
empirical research coupled with methodological pluralism. The author makes a
point of ending critical seminars with the caveat: "But whatever you do, don't believe what I tell you". The
emphasis should always be placed on empowering members of the audience to make
up their own minds. This is in direct contrast to those who advocate
prescriptive models of lean construction whilst seeking to stifle critical
debate.
CONCLUSION
There is significant evidence to suggest that the UK construction
industry possesses an institutionalised regressive culture of HRM, despite
notable exceptions. This acts as a powerful disincentive to the young,
intelligent and creative people that the industry so badly needs. Lean
construction has been accepted as an essential element of best practice despite
widespread concerns regarding the HRM implications of lean methods. The
emphasis of lean thinking on eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes
it easy to absorb into the best practice agenda because it conforms to the
dominant way of thinking. New ideas are apparently only accepted as best
practice if they reflect the construction industry's ingrained culture of hard
HRM. There is seemingly no demand for ideas that challenge the existing
worldviews of industry leaders. The champions of best practice are seemingly
programmed to consider only the narrow domain of instrumental rationality. Even
supposedly enlightened practices such as teamworking, partnering and total
quality management are ultimately judged in terms of their contribution to cost
efficiency. The dominant 'industry recipe' of HRM will inevitably shape the way
that lean methods are implemented. Unless this issue is tackled explicitly, the
implementation of lean construction will continue to reinforce the industry's
dominant culture of 'command and control'. The ultimate victim will be the
sustainability of the construction industry and its long-term capacity to serve
the needs of the UK economy and society.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognised that there
are many within the construction management research community that feel
uncomfortable with the validity of critical contributions. Some of the common
counter-criticisms offered by the advocates of lean construction have been
acknowledged and the contribution to knowledge has been defended. There is a
tendency to suppress critical work on the basis that it lacks empirical
evidence and is one-sided in its argument. The fact that these standards do not
seemingly apply to the prescriptive literature on lean construction reinforces
the contention that management research is subject to an ideological filtering
system. Whilst this filtering system is undoubtedly subconscious, it is
nevertheless powerful.
It is valid and important to criticise the methodology
of critical research. However, it must also be recognised that there are
methodological limitations associated with all research paradigms. The task of
gathering empirical evidence undistorted by ideological frameworks is extremely
problematic. To make explicit the assumptions associated with different
methodologies is of central importance to 'good research'. An understanding of
the assumptions and limitations of critical research is therefore essential in
the greater cause of methodological reflexivity. Nevertheless, it must also be
recognised that there are a number of theoretical schisms within critical
management studies that are not easily papered over. Significant conflicts
exist between structural Marxists and critical postmodernists. There is a
further stark line of tension between those that advocate engagement with
practising managers and those that see the discipline of management as a lost
cause beyond redemption. The personal orientation of the author favours the
postmodernist theme coupled with a policy of active engagement. Such a position
is by no means beyond criticism. As a final comment, it is useful to cite
Burrell (2001), who has likened critical work to an open wound - 'long may it
fester'.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An earlier version of the first part of this paper was presented at the
2000 Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction held in
Brighton, UK. The second part addresses some of the counter-criticisms kindly
offered by the conference participants. Some of these criticisms were repeated
and reinforced by the anonymous referees in response to the initial draft
submitted to this journal. This final version is much improved as a result of
their comments.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000) Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, London.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H.
(1996) Making Sense of Management: A
Critical Introduction, Sage, London.
Anderson, S., Cavanagh, J.,
Collins, C, Hartman, C. and Yeskel, F. (2000) Executive Excess 2000, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington,
USA.
Ballard, G. and Howell, G.
(1997) Shielding production: an essential step in production control, ASCE Construction Engineering and Management,
124(1), 11-17.
Benders, J. (1996) Leaving
Lean? Recent changes in the production orientation of some Japanese car plants,
Economic and Industrial Democracy,
17(1), 9-38.
Berggren, C. (1993) Lean
production - the End of History?, Work,
Employment and Society, 7(2) June, 163-188.
Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A.
(1994) Policy and Practice in European
Human Resource Management: The Price Waterhouse/Cranfield Survey.
Routledge, London.
Burrell, G. (2001) Ephemera:
critical dialogues on organization, Ephemera,
1(1), 11-29.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G.
(1979) Sociological Paradigms and
Organisational Analysis, Heinemann, London.
Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N.
(1994) New work systems and skill requirements, International Labour Review, 133(2) 205-220.
CBPP (1998) Lean Construction,
Construction Best Practice Programme, Garston.
Coffey, M. and Langford, D.
(1998) The propensity for employee participation by electrical and mechanical
trades in the construction industry, Construction
Management and Economics,16, 543-552.
Cully, M., Woodland, S.,
O'Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999) Britain
at Work, Routledge, London.
Dainty, A.R.J., Bagilhole,
B.M. and Neale, R.H. (2000) A grounded theory of women’s career
under-achievement in large UK construction companies, Construction Management and Economics, 18, 239-250.
Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and
Oliver, N. (2000) Worker automony in lean teams: evidence from the world
automotive components industry, in Proctor, S. and Mueller, F. (eds.) Teamworking, MacMillan, Basingstoke,
125-142.
DETR (1998) Rethinking Construction, Dept. of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.
DETR (1999) Construction Research & Innovation
Programme, Annual Report 1998/99, Dept. of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, London.
Dohse, K., Jurgens, U. and
Malsch, T. (1985) From Fordism to Toyotism? The social organization of the labour
process in the Japanese automobile industry, Politics and Society, 14(2), 115-46.
Druker, J., White, G.,
Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996) Between hard and soft HRM: human resource
management in the construction industry, Construction
Managemen. and Economics, 14, 405-416.
Flanagan, R., Marsh, L. and
Ingram, I. (1998) Bridge to the Future:
Profitable Construction for Tomorrow’s Industry and its Customers, Thomas
Telford, London.
Fournier, V. and Grey, C.
(2000) At the critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management
studies, Human Relations, 53, 7-32.
Fucini, J. and
Fucini, S. (1990) Working for the
Japanese, The Free Press, New York.
Gann, D. and Salter, A. (1999)
Interdisciplinary Skills for Built
Environment Professionals: A Scoping Study, Ove Arup Foundation.
Garrahan, P. and Stewart, P.
(1992) The Nissan Enigma: Flexibility at
Work in a Local Economy, Mansell, London.
Grönning, T (1995) Recent
developments at Toyota Motor Co.: The emergence of neo-Toyotaism, in Sanning,
A. (ed.) Enriching Production -
Perspectives of Volvo's Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production,
Avebury, Aldershot, 405-425.
Guest, D. (1987) Human
resource management and industrial relations, Journal of Management Studies, 24(5), 503 – 521.
Hall, M. (1998) A Proposal
for Advancing the People Management Research Agenda of the ACI, Agile
Report, University of Bath.
Hampson, I., Ewer, P. and
Smith, M. (1994) Post-Fordism and workplace change: towards a critical research
agenda, Journal of Industrial Relations,
June, 231-257.
Held, D. (1980) Introduction
to Critical Theory, Hutchinson, London.
Hillebrandt, P. and Cannon, J. (1990) The
Modern Construction Firm. Macmillian, London.
Howell, G. and Ballard, G.
(1998) Implementing lean construction: understanding and action, Proc. 6th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group
for Lean Constr. Guarujá, Brazil.
Howell, G. and Ballard, G.
(1999) Bringing light to the dark side of lean construction: a response to
Stuart Green, Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Intl.
Group for Lean Constr., (ed. I. D. Tommelein), University of California,
Berkeley, 33-37.
Hutchinson, S., Kinnie, N and
Purcell, J. (1996) Report by the University of Bath, in The People Management Implications of Leaner Ways of Working,
Issues in People Management, No.15, Institute of Personnel and Development,
London.
IPD (1996) The People Management Implications of Leaner
Ways of Working, Issues in People Management, No.15, Institute of Personnel
and Development, London.
Kamata, S. (1982) Japan in the Passing Lane: An Insider’s Account of Life in a Japanese
Auto Factory, Pantheon Books, New York.
Koskela, L. (2000) An Exploration Towards a Production Theory
and its Application to Construction, VTT Publications No. 408, Technical
Research Centre of Finland.
Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and
Realities, MacMillan, London.
Machin, S. (1996) Wage inequality in the UK, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12(1),
47-64.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side
of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nomura, M. (1992) Farewell to "Toyotism"? Recent
Trend of a Japanese Automobile Company, Report No. 1992-1, Dept. of
Economics, Okayama University, Okayama.
Parker, M. and Slaughter, J.
(1988) Management by stress, Technology
Review, October, 37-44.
Rehder, R. R. (1994) Saturn,
Uddevalla and the Japanese lean system: paradoxical prototypes for the
twenty-first century, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 1-31.
Saad, M. and Jones, M. (1998) Unlocking
Specialist Potential, Reading Construction Forum.
Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner:
Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Seymour, D. (1999) Lean
construction: towards an agenda for research into systems and organisation, Proc. of the 7th Conf. Intl. Group for Lean
Constr., (ed. I. D. Tommelein), University of California, Berkeley,
381-397.
Storey, J. (1992) Developments in
the Management of Human Resources. Blackwell, Oxford. Sugimoto, Y.
(1997) An Introduction to Japanese
Society, Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, F. W.
(1911) Principles of Scientific
Management, Harper & Row, New York.
Tommelein, I. D. (1998)
Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: simulation of lean
construction technique, ASCE Construction
Engineering and Management, 124(4) 279-288.
Truss, C., Gratton, L.,
Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997) Soft and hard models of
human resource management: a reappraisal, Journal
of Management Studies, 34(1), 53-73.
Turnbull, P. (1988) The limits
to Japanization - just-in-time, labour relations and the UK automotive
industry, New Technology, Work and
Employment, 3(1), 7-20.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T.
and Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that
Changed the World, Rawson Associates, New York.
Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (1996) Lean
Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York.
[1] Department of Construction Management & Engineering, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK