opportunity for the innovative continuous improvement activities anticipated by
Kenney and Florida ( 1993 ) and others. This is compounded when workplace
relations are characterized by low trust as was found in Delbridge’s ( 1998 ) study
of a Japanese-owned consumer electronics plant operating in the UK. Here workers
found the high levels of direct surveillance and supervision stressful and intimi-
dating. The demands for reliable quality had led to a ‘culture of blame,’ dividing the
workforce and exacerbating feelings of distrust. This had led to the widespread
withdrawal of discretionary eVort with workers failing to contribute suggestions
for improvement and not participating in problem-solving group activity. Similar
circumstances are reported by Rinehart et al. ( 1997 ) from their longitudinal study
of a car assembly plant in Canada. They conclude that the lean production system
there requires reliable andXexible workers, rather than committed ones willing to
contribute discretionary eVort on continuous improvement. Overall, such studies
question the extent to which lean manufacturing is actually driven by an innovative
learning dynamic when put into practice.
From the wealth of qualitative research that has been conducted over the last
Wfteen years, two key conclusions can be made: (a) the demands of the lean
manufacturing model place a considerable strain on shopXoor workers which
undermines the prospects for the deployment of discretionary eVort on their
part and so circumscribes the likelihood of ongoing continuous improvement;
(b) in seeking to address the problems of (a), managers are confronted by import-
ant challenges over how to manage the employment relationship such that greater
levels of commitment and discretionary eVort may be secured. These challenges
have prompted critical reXection upon universalistic notions of best practice and
been framed in terms of a ‘contingency’ approach to strategic HRM which argues
for a link between an organization’s ‘idiosyncratic contingencies,’ business strategy,
and HR practices (Boxall 1996 ; for an overview of these debates and the related
problems of ‘Wt,’ see Boxall and Purcell 2002 and Legge 2005 ). These debates have
drawn greater attention to the organizational context of HR practices, work
systems, and operations. In particular, there has been a growing call for an
enhanced sensitivity to institutional and market context regarding the adoption
and implementation of HPWSs (see Murray et al. 2002 ). We will reXect upon this
further below, butWrst let us brieXy consider the prospects for alternatives to the
HPWS/lean manufacturing model.
20.4 Alternatives to Lean
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
While one should remain cautious of overly stylized patterns of organization, it is
possible to recognize distinctive but relatively coherent alternatives to the lean
416 rick delbridge