Stuart D. Green - Abstracts

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:

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):

· 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.

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 Critisisms

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 19^th 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 19^th 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.

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.

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. 6^th 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.

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] School of Construction Management & Engineering, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

Back

staff

student

search

School of Construction Management and Engineering

Personal Responsibilities Publications Research PhD Details

UoR Home > Stuart D. Green's Homepage > Publications

The human resource management implications of lean construction: critical perspectives and conceptual chasms

Abstract