system over detailed analysis of the nature of work organization and employment
relations.^6
With the success of Japanese corporations in the 1980 s and 1990 s came greater
interest in how Western manufacturers might learn lessons from these companies
in order to improve eYciency and quality performance. There was a considerable
debate around the ‘transferability’ of ‘Japanese’ manufacturing techniques and
practices and an enormous interest in the so-called ‘Japanization’ of Western
manufacturing (for example, Oliver and Wilkinson 1992 ; Elger and Smith 1994 ;
Liker et al. 1999 ). These debates turned attention much more directly to the social
processes of lean manufacturing, especially the nature of HRM practices and the
employment relations required to operate a fragile and tightly integrated manu-
facturing system.
Early studies of Japanese factories by Abegglen ( 1958 ), Cole ( 1971 ), and Dore
( 1973 ) had outlined important elements of the uniquely Japanese approach to
employment relations—the so-called ‘three pillars’ of lifetime employment,
a seniority wage system, and enterprise unions—which derived from the socio-
historical and institutional context of post-war Japan. The emphasis on transfer-
ability, however, placed the focus more squarely on work organization and
management practices more appropriate to the underpinning requirements for
workers to be motivated,Xexible, mobile, and appropriately skilled (Thurley
1982 ). Proponents (for example, Wickens 1987 ) argued that the secret of Japanese
Wrms’ success was the combination of teamwork, quality consciousness, andXex-
ibility which resulted in a harmonious and productive working environment.
Others have questioned the harmony of Japanese workplaces (for example, Del-
bridge and Turnbull 1992 ; Gordon 1985 ) and empirical evidence fails to support the
claims for greater worker satisfaction (see Dunphy 1986 ; Lincoln and Kalleberg
1990 ). Advocates and critics concur, though, that the systems’ characteristics of lean
manufacturing—minimal buVers, tight coupling of processes, the necessity of reli-
ability and quality, and a drive for continuous improvement—place major demands
on workers and present a considerable challenge to managers, particularly with
regard to HR practices.
- 3 HRM and Lean Manufacturing
Recognition of the integrated nature of production, organization, and HRM has
contributed signiWcantly to advances in understanding. Previous research on new
forms of work organization had tended to focus on isolated practices such as the use
(^6) Authors such as Pascale and Athos ( 1982 ) emphasized the unique history and culture of Japan
when assessing its corporate success in the 1980 s and the HR practices associated with large Japanese
Wrms at that time were inXuential in the emergence of Human Resource Management (see for
example, Ouchi 1981 ).
412 r i c k d e l b r i d g e