International Journal of Operations & Production Management

The impact of shop floor culture and subculture on lean production practices
Dvid Losonci Richrd Ksa Krisztina Demeter Balzs Heidrich Istvn Jenei
Article information:
To cite this document:
Dvid Losonci Richrd Ksa Krisztina Demeter Balzs Heidrich Istvn Jenei , (2017)," The impact of shop floor culture and
subculture on lean production practices ", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 37 Iss 2 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-2014-0524
Downloaded on: 08 January 2017, At: 20:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2017*
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Abstract
Purpose Our empirical study examines the impact of shop floor (SF) culture (organizational
culture perceived by workers) and SF subcultures assessed by the Competing Values
Framework (CVF) on the perceived use of lean production (LP) practices.

Design/methodology/approach We analyse questionnaires completed by workers at our

single case company undergoing a commonplace lean transformation. The survey items cover
both LP items and CVF statements. Our propositions are analysed applying cluster analysis
and regression.

Findings At the case company, the multidimensionality of SF culture only partially exists,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

and the perceived use of LP practices shows little connection to organizational culture. The
considerable differences between SF culture and SF subcultures on one hand and among SF
subcultures on the other hand indicate the existence of a special multidimensional SF culture.
Altogether, SF cultures impact on LP is weak.

Practical implications Managers should rethink the usual lean implementation pathways
and understand how values pervade SF culture and how culture types impact the perceived
use of LP practices at the SF. Managers could face a trade-off: smoother lean transition by
engaging in SF subculture-specific transitions and reinforcing it or by developing a
homogenous lean SF culture.

Originality/value To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical attempt to
understand the impact of SF culture on the perceived use of LP practices by adopting a
validated organizational culture measurement tool. Furthermore, our study provides insight
into workers subcultures.

Keywords Organizational Culture, Shop Floor Culture, Lean Production, Competing Values
Framework, Organizational Subcultures

Paper type Research paper

1
 1. Introduction
Although the lack of a supporting organizational culture (OC) is one of the most often-cited
reasons for the difficulties and high failure rates experienced during the implementation of
lean production (LP), there are no empirical studies analysing the relation between OC and LP.
Rather, papers still highlight conceptual considerations (e.g., Badurdeen et al., 2011; Wong
and Cheah, 2011), and books describe mature lean producers (usually Toyota) (Liker and
Hoseus, 2008). Altogether, the Operations Management (OM) field, including the area of LP,
lacks empirical works relying on OC assessment instruments.
Our empirical study aims to scrutinize the impact of OC on LP practices using the Competing
Values Framework (CVF) (Cameron and Quinn, 2011) at the shop floor (SF) level. This
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

popular framework defines culture types within organizations along the dimensions of a)
control vs. flexibility and b) internal vs. external focus. For example, bureaucratic
organizations are inclined towards control and an internal focus, while innovative companies
are more flexible and externally focused. We analyse how the OC at SF level determined by
CVF influences the perceived use of LP practices in order to suggest better implementation
guidelines.
This paper brings new knowledge from two aspects. (1) OM usually analyses its concepts
from a managerial point of view. This paper argues that other hierarchical levels, e.g., the
worker level (Khazanchi et al., 2007), are also crucial. We approach OC at the SF level (i.e.,
SF culture) and analyse how SF culture impacts the perceived use of LP practices. (2) We
adopt the notion of subcultures and propose differentiation even among workers perception
of SF culture and analyse how the possibly existing SF subcultures influence the use of LP
practices.
The theoretical part of our paper describes LP and OC and highlights CVF as an adequate OC
framework and assessment tool. After introducing the relationship between OC and LP, we
develop our propositions. Next, we give a detailed description of the case company. After an
overview of methodology, we present the analysis, the results and their discussion. Finally,
considerations of theoretical and practical contributions and limitations are listed.

2. Literature review
2.1. Lean production
It is widely recognized that LP has a dual nature: (1) it consists of a wide range of production
tools and methodologies such as kanban, quick changeover, andon, etc.; (2) these tools are
backed by a holistic philosophy and principles throughout the organization (Womack and

2
 Jones, 2003; Hines et al., 2004). Furthermore, Moyano-Fuentes and Sacristn-Daz (2012)
noted that researchers practically approach LP from four perspectives. Perspectives place
different emphasis on internal, value chain and work organization aspects, as well as on the
geographical context. While several works integrate these perspectives in lean literature (Shah
and Ward, 2007; de Menezes et al., 2010), it remains common to focus on the internal aspects
of the companies' production process. Although we acknowledge the importance of holistic
and integrative views of LP, our paper approaches LP from an internal lens focusing on
technical tools. The main reason for this simplification is that workers in plants, who are in
the focus of this paper, rarely have adequate knowledge beyond their direct environment. On
an empirical basis, Shah and Ward (2007) defined five internally related LP bundles, namely:
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

pull, flow, low setup, controlled processes, and productive maintenance. These bundles
consist of lean tools and align company efforts with lean principles. We focus our attention on
these internally related LP bundles.

2.2. Organizational culture and organizational subcultures

The crucial importance of OC has gained attention since the 1980s. Practitioners and
researchers interests were captured by the superior performance of Japanese firms over their
American counterparts (Pascale and Athos, 1981; Ouchi, 1981). It has become accepted that
OC is not only a soft business issue but also a rather strategic competitiveness factor
(Cameron and Quinn, 2006), given its influence on performance. For OC, we adopt the
definition by Schein (1992 p. 12): A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group
learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has
worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the
correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. That is, culture refers
to invisible artefacts of an organization and embraces beliefs, values and attitudes.
The OC approach has been very diverse since the appearance of the concept. Martin (1992)
acknowledged that there are three perspectives of OC: (1) the unitary (integrated model), (2)
the pluralist (differentiated), and (3) the anarchist (fragmented) culture (Figure 1). According
to the unitarist perspective, there is an essential unity of the organization that allows the
classification of OC. This perspective assumes top-down cultural leadership and conformity
of all members in order to be effective, and thus, culture is seen as homogeneous. The
pluralist perspective recognizes the existence of diverse subcultures in organizations (i.e.,
culture is heterogeneous) and, as such, diversity management becomes a central issue. The
anarchist perspective indicates an even greater level of fragmentation, with all organizational

3
 cultures being made up of individuals with their own values and norms and, as such, neither a
single dominant culture nor any subcultures are said to exist. These approaches of OC are not
exclusive. Schein (1992) pointed to the possibility of the co-existence of subcultures and a
dominant culture.

Figure 1

The unitary perspective is the most widespread in OM. Researchers assess OC using one or
several managerial opinions. It is implicitly assumed that managers values and norms
represent the homogeneous OC of a particular organization. Although other approaches would
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

also be viable in OM, they are rarely applied.

2.3. Competing Values Framework (CVF) and its measurement

To assess OC, many different concepts and corresponding measurement instruments have
been developed (i.e., Hofstede and Bond, 1984; Schein, 1992; House et.al, 2004, for a review
see Detert et al., 2000). In our paper, we define and assess the OC by using the CVF, which
was developed by Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983), as a means of describing the effectiveness of
organizations along two axes (Figure 2):
one ranging from control to flexibility and
the other with a focus ranging from an internal focus to an external focus.
A combination of these axes defines four culture types:
1. Internal focus and flexibility axes define clan culture. The clan culture type is
characterized by internal cohesiveness with shared values, participation and
collectivism. It focuses on internal problems and concerns of individuals and
perpetual employment with an informal approach to work characterized by flexibility
and discretion.
2. External focus and flexibility axes define adhocracy culture. The adhocracy culture
type uses ad hoc approaches to solve problems incurred from the surrounding
environment with flexibility and discretion. This, combined with the external focus
and differentiation, indicate a willingness to take risks, creativity and innovation.
Independence and freedom are highly respected.
3. External focus and control axes define market culture. The market culture type has
an orientation toward the market and toward maintaining or expanding the current
market share. Competition is emphasized within the boundaries of stability and

4
 control as with the setting of ambitious, quantifiable goals.
4. Internal focus and control axes define hierarchy culture. The hierarchy culture type
has centralized decision-making and attention to stability and control through
formalized structures, standardization and rigidity with policies, instructions and
procedures. Conformity is encouraged.

Each organization is represented by a combination of these culture types. Therefore, the issue
is not to identify the only relevant type, but rather the dominant one for the organization.

Figure 2
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

CVF allows a detailed analysis of OC using both the unitarist and the pluralist perspectives.
With the support of this framework, not only the explicit dominant culture but also the
implicitly hidden subcultures can be detected.
The measurement tool of CVF is the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI).
OCAI serves well as a diagnostic tool for assessing cultures based on the examination of core
values, shared assumptions and common approaches to work (Heritage et al., 2014). OCAIs
24 statements are related to each culture type and represent underlying values regarding
organizational characteristics, leadership, the management of employees, organizational glue,
strategic orientation and success criteria.
The original CVF model (Cameron and Ettington, 1988) applied the scenario method in
which respondents distribute 100 points among culture types. Due to difficulties to use this
approach for statistical analyses, Quinn and Spreitzer (1991) introduced a Likert-scale-based
measurement and confirmed that CVF is a good measure not only of OC but also of attributes.
Others also verified the validity of the new scale (Howard, 1998).

2.4. Lean production and organizational culture

Managers aiming to achieve sustainable LP seek solutions from Toyotas practices. Currently,
recognizing the shortcomings and failures of adopting pure lean tools without OC change,
process improvement and cultural changeover go hand in hand. Many recent bestsellers
describe Toyotas lean culture (Liker and Hoseus, 2008; Mann, 2010). These works describe
how the organizational context should be transformed. They highlight human resource
management, work organization, performance management, coaching, leadership and

5
 employee behaviours, and strategy deployment. In these works, culture usually refers to the
detailed description of Toyotas daily routines and policies in the above topics.
Following a review of works on LP and OC, several critical points emerge. First, these books
introduce the OC of the best-in-class lean organizations. While Toyotas practices can be
regarded as a perfect future state for many companies, little emphasis is given to the
transformation process. Second, it is implicitly assumed that Toyotas OC is unitary. This way
of working indeed could be the basis of common practice in Toyotas global network;
however, in an automotive corporation with over 300,000 employees and 54 overseas
manufacturing companies in 27 countries (Toyota, 2015a and 2015b) (excluding Japanese
facilities), the application of an existing uniform approach to OC seems limited. Third, the
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

authors do not apply any culture concept or OC measurement tool to analyse Toyotas mature
lean culture.
By picking up tools, methods and principles from Toyota, one can intuitively map its complex
OC based on CVF. Given the four culture types of the CVF framework, we state the
following:
Standardization, formal procedures and process controls (Spear and Bowen, 1999) sustain
a hierarchy culture.
Commitment to capability development and the respect for people pillar of the Toyota
Production System (TPS) support a clan culture.
Performance and goal orientation are substantive features of lean production. For example,
value creation for customers as the first lean principle (Womack and Jones, 2003) or takt
time that links customer expectations and internal processes are noteworthy signs of a
market culture.
Toyotas innovations (e.g., Lexus, a premium brand, and Prius, a hybrid car) are the
manifestations of an adhocracy culture (Liker, 2004).
These examples support the notion that LP is grounded by a multidimensional, balanced OC.
Indeed, Cameron and Quinn (2011) noted in their theoretical analysis of Toyotas vision
(without measurement support) that the company has no dominant culture and claim that its
success is dependent on a balanced culture where a similar emphasis is required in each of
the four culture types (p. 84). Altogether, the importance of the influence of OC on LP and
the lack of empirical research on the relationship even in case of Toyota highlight the need
for empirical research.

6
 2.5. Empirical findings of CVF in Operations Management
In order to select the most relevant empirical findings, we systematically reviewed top OM
journals. A keyword-based (competing values and competing value) search was
conducted in top journals listed by the Association of Business Schools. Altogether, 11
journals (all Grade Four or Three journal titles, plus Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management) of the OM and Technology field were searched. Out of the 36 related papers,
only four empirical studies were relevant to our objectives (Khazanchi et al., 2007;
McDermott and Stock, 1999; Zu et al., 2010; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). Further studies
only referred to these works or monitored the literature (Gambi et al., 2015).
A few examples of research efforts in LP were also revealed; however, these papers were not
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

published in top journals (Wong and Cheah, 2011; Badurdeen et al., 2011; Dahlgraad and
Dahlgraad-Pak, 2006) and were conceptual. Furthermore, only Wong and Cheah (2011)
focused on lean culture. They argue that the implementation of LP is a difficult task and
challenges many organizations. They also underline that culture ties all the separate tools
of a lean system together (p. 16). Due to lack of research on lean culture, we build on
findings of similar modern production concepts (MPCs) (e.g., total quality management,
TQM; and advanced manufacturing technology, AMT) throughout our study.
Some previous works (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Zu et al., 2010) study the relationship
between practices of MPCs and OC. They hypothesize a causal relationship and assume that
OC has direct impact on the use of MPCs practices. It is explicitly argued that existing OC
determines MPCs success and that companies that focus on creating a culture within these
procedures can thrive (Powell 1995 p. 29) or find the fertile soil (i.e., appropriate OC) for
an MPC (Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). This direction of the causal relationship is common
in other studies as well (Dellana and Hauser, 2000). With this in mind, it is also argued that
OC, as an invisible part of the organization, changes only very slowly, and that in order to
implement an MPC, a supporting OC is required a priori.
Cameron and Quinn (2011) identified a multidimensional relationship between TQM and OC
on a theoretical basis. A good example of the multiple culture types supporting TQM is that
people-oriented practices are driven by a different value orientation than quality-related and
process control techniques. Prajogo and McDermott (2005) proved this theoretical
consideration. They found empirical evidence of the multidimensional relationship of TQM
programs and OC and highlighted the clan culture type as the most dominant. However, they
stated that TQM is influenced at various levels by all four culture types. Zu et al. (2010) and
Gambi et al. (2015) reached a similar conclusion. Zu et al. highlighted the importance of the

7
 clan culture type and named the market culture type as an additional influential culture type.
However, they did not find any influence of the hierarchy culture type on quality management.
Gambi et al. (2015) argued that the market and clan culture types are the strongest predictors
of quality techniques. Dellana and Hauser (2000) placed emphasis on the impact of flexibility
and on the importance of the clan and adhocracy culture types.
Less empirical evidence is available on AMT, and the findings are more ambiguous.
Zammuto and OConnor (1992), in their milestone work, assumed that adhocracy supports the
best AMT implementation. Later studies could not definitively prove their assumptions.
McDermott and Stock (1999) found that market culture and external orientation in general
have a real influence on AMT. Khazanchi et al. (2007) argued that enhanced flexibility and
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

stability occurred at the same time. Altogether, AMT can be affected by both forms of
external orientation, namely, the market and adhocracy culture types.
Table 1 summarizes these findings and underlines that more than one culture type influences
the implementation of quality management and AMT.

Table 1

2.6. Organizational subcultures at the worker level and their impact on modern production
concepts
According to the cited definition by Schein, different organizational levels can face different
problems and have distinct sets of assumptions, therefore forming different cultural groups.
Indeed, organizational studies found remarkable differences between hierarchical levels
(Cooke and Rousseau, 1988). Workers in a manufacturing plant are in a completely different
context than managers, e.g., they have different tasks, responsibilities, duties, work
environments and motivation systems (see Huber and Hyer, 1985; de Treville and Antonakis,
2006).
There are many considerations in OM that the perception of homogenous organizational
culture should be complemented by organizational subcultures differing by hierarchical levels
(Prajogo and McDermott, 2005). Detert et al. (2000) urge research on subcultures based on
the common conclusion of previous studies: in case after case, senior executives have
paid scant attention to the values and beliefs of lower-level employees, acting as if their
management subculture represents a unitary, organization-wide culture (p. 858). Khazanchi
et al. (2007) found that the perception of similar values, the so-called value congruence of
managers and workers, is vital in process innovation.

8
 The assumption of a single OC perceived by workers is also a simplification of value diversity.
Even in smaller organizations, groups of workers can easily evolve with distinct problems and
corresponding assumptions. Hence, a subculture in an organization is represented by a group
with members sharing homogenous values.
Operators perceptions of OC were analysed previously in relation to MPCs. Unfortunately,
the applied methodologies and objectives hindered the investigation of SF (sub)culture(s).
Khazanchi et al.s (2007) survey-based study, for example, analysed 110 operators value
orientations and compared them to managerial perceptions. Due to the cross-sectional dataset
(one operator per company) and AMTs limited scope in organizations (it affected one to
three workers), it would be hardly possible to identify subcultures. Naor et al.s (2008) dataset
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

also consisted of workers perceptions. However, they used plant-level scores of OC items
derived from supervisors, managers and workers.
Altogether, based on the available literature, it seems to be relevant to investigate the OC and
its impact on LP implementation at the worker level and to seek for differences in perceived
OC, even among worker groups (i.e., SF subcultures).

3. Research framework
3.1. Transferring modern production concepts findings to the lean production context
The aim of our study is to analyse the impact of OC on LP practices at the SF level. The lack
of studies on this topic motivated us to develop propositions from previous findings on MPCs,
as depicted by Figure 3. We argue that the similarities between MPCs (e.g., TQM) and LP
make it reasonable to transfer findings on MPCs to the lean context.
However, we must devote special attention to the assumptions of these studies. As Figure 3
summarizes, MPCs studies rely on managerial opinion and usually apply the unitary OC
perspective. In other words, while the majority of MPCs studies claim to assess OC, they are
usually limited to managerial culture perceptions. Our study adopts the findings of MPC
studies to the LP context, and instead of the managerial viewpoint, it uses workers point of
view. Altogether, MPC findings are transferred to a similar production context and analysed
at a different organizational level. To properly distinguish the focus of the current work, we
use the term SF (sub)culture to describe workers perception of OC.

Figure 3

Considering this research setup, it is a rational choice to conduct a single case design. Our

9
 case company serves as a laboratory investigator to test previously developed findings in a
new context (Yin, 2009 p. 38). In accordance with this aim, our case company is a typical and
revelatory case (Yin, 2009). First, our case company is a representative or typical case that
captures the circumstances of a commonplace lean transition. Second, it is a revelatory case
because it enables the investigation of previously overlooked issues (the impact of SF
(sub)culture(s) on LP practices. We elaborate propositions to understand this relationship.
Although, our analyses rely on statistical methods the use of propositions (instead of
hypotheses) should emphasize that we are interested in the exploration of these relationships.

3.2. Propositions
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

According to the literature, a multidimensional OC influences MPC practices. Simply, this

impact means that the implementation of MPCs can take different paths depending on the
level of balance between various OC types. Some practices can be more easily implemented
in a dominant clan culture, for example. There are slight differences between quality
management and AMT findings. Works on quality management note the dominant impact of
clan culture, while one cannot identify a dominant supporting culture for AMT. Based on
these empirical findings and on the theoretical support from Quinn and Cameron on Toyotas
OC, we assume that multidimensional OC influences LP practices. Transferring this
assumption to a worker-level analysis, the following proposition can be formulated:

P1 Multidimensional shop floor culture impacts the perceived use of lean production
practices.

Scholars engaged in MPCs usually study the perceptions of operations, production or logistics
managers. As emphasized previously, various organizational levels can have different
perceptions of the same organizational phenomenon, such as OC. Our second proposition is
concerned with the existence of SF subcultures and examines how SF subcultural perceptions
may have an impact on LP practices. Transferring this assumption to a worker-level analysis,
the following proposition can be formulated:

P2 Each shop floor subculture has a different impact on the perceived use of lean
production practices.

4. Research setup

10
 4.1. The case company
Our study focuses on a company located in Hungary. It is the only Hungarian subsidiary of a
multidivisional, international company that has several production sites in most continents.
The Hungarian plant belongs to the electrical division. The plant produces a wide range of
carbon-based parts, e.g., industrial ceramics, impregnated carbon products, collectors and
brushes. The market for brushes has rapidly shrunk, and competition has grown in recent
years. Therefore, the company urged cost-saving initiatives and rationalized its production
worldwide. This rationalizing process brought more products and increased volume to the
Hungarian plant. The company concentrated on brush and collector production in this plant.
The shrinking market and the wide range of products in this plant also transformed the nature
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

of perceived demand. The plant now faces a low volume and high mix market. It delivers
1000 different types of products to approximately 600 customers. Products rarely repeat
within the year, and typically, the plant produces a different product each day.
The plant has been in operation for two decades, beginning with a half dozen people.
Currently, the plant employs nearly seventy operators.
The history of the company is based on publicly available documents and interviews with the
production manager who led the lean transformation. The data for statistical analysis stem
from our survey covering both LP (32 item) and OC (24 OCAI items). OCAI items are based
on Cameron and Quinns (2006 p. 26-28) measures. LP items rely on a lean assessment model
(Pakdil and Leonard, 2014). Respondents considered the actual status (perceived) when
evaluating items on a 1-5 Likert scale (1-strongly disagree; 5-strongly agree). Before all the
respondents received the questionnaire, the questions were tested and checked with three
operators for clarity and were changed if necessary. Out of the nearly 70 operators, 57
received and filled in the questionnaire voluntarily and 51 remained in the final sample after
responses with missing items were omitted from the analysis. 24 LP items and 12 OCAI items
used in our analysis are listed in Table 2 and depicted by Figure 4.

4.2. Lean production at the case company

LP was first introduced at the plant roughly five years before the study took place. The current
production manager joined the company at that time. He had already been trained and was
experienced in LP. At the plant, the operators received initial training in lean practices but
without any further development. The production manager, who was the only one at the
company with lean experience, introduced 5S at one of the most problematic workstations as
a first step towards a lean approach. Later, he introduced a sample workstation.

11
 Next, the production manager and another engineer who had some insight in this area and had
received training taught operators directly and tried to involve them in improvement activities.
The main focuses of the training course touched upon 5S, Single-Minute Exchange of Dies
(SMED) and the 7 wastes. A system was put in place to gather operators suggestions and
ideas for improvement. Several ideas were collected and realized. To speed up lean
transformation and address changes, a consulting company was hired. However, the working
contract was terminated shortly due to relationship issues.
Parallel to these activities, lean management became a companywide philosophy at an
international level. Therefore, the purchasing and health and safety divisions began using a
lean approach throughout their network of subsidiaries.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

The production manager insisted on the involvement of a consulting company and began
collaboration with another consultancy firm. This relationship worked well. Consultants held
two-day training courses for all employees in the plant and used simulation games to present
the logic of lean production. With the consultants, operator movements were mapped (using
spaghetti diagrams), the factory layout was repeatedly reorganized, machines repainted, work
cells formed, production lines balanced, one-way flow created and visual management tools
introduced. As a result of all these efforts, work in progress and stock volume dropped and
production became more transparent.
Table 2 gives an assessment of actual status of LP. It lists internally focused LP items. Our
items (and constructs in Table 5) overlap with focal lean techniques and bundles of previous
studies (see section 2.1). Popular lean items such as value stream mapping, SMED, TPM or
single piece flow were omitted from the table because approximately one-third of the
operators did not know them. Table 2 underlines the efforts at the plant to sustain a lean
system.

Table 2

Based on the history of LP at the company and on workers perceptions (Table 2), we
conclude that our company is already on the path towards lean. It undergoes a commonplace
lean transition and, hence, can serve as a laboratory investigator. Therefore, we can analyse
how the OC existing in the mind of employees relates to the perceived use of LP practices.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Preparation of the CVF model

12
 To build a coherent CVF model to describe the SF culture of the case organization and to
identify SF subcultures, a combination of two methods were used (Srlie and Sexton 2001).
To examine each parameters fit and to find (a priori) latent structure of variables, an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted first, and a confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) was applied to verify the model.
During the EFA, four factors were evaluated out of the 24 observed variables. In order to
maximize the fit of the model, variables with low consistency have not been included in the
analysis. Key results are summarized in Table 3.
For further improvements, a CFA was performed. As a result, variables with the highest
impact on the categories of CVF were identified.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Table 3

The best-fitting model had 13 observed variables out of the 24 measured ones. Through the
combined application of EFA and CFA, inconsistent variables were effectively filtered from
the whole set of variables. This iteration process of eliminating variables with low factor
weights and inserting covariance between variable pairs with high modification indexes was
continued until the fit tests suggested a well-fitting model. This final models fit is shown in
Figure 4.

Figure 4

To test convergent validity, Fornell and Larcker's (1981) recommendations were followed,
and based on the results, convergent validity was achieved (standardized factor loadings
exceed 0.5; the composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.6; the average variance expressed
(AVE) exceeds 0.5; the average shared variance (ASV) exceeds 0.5.
According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) and using reference suggestions (e.g., Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2007), the most important tests of absolute fit, incremental and parsimonious fit
were also performed in order to make sure that the stripped-down model offers the best
available option. All results of these tests are within the thresholds; the model cannot be
improved further.
These tests clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that variables remaining in the constructs
are now consistent, coherent and fit the model well. However, in the constructed dataset, the
market factor has only two variables (see Figure 4). Moreover, keeping this factor is

13
 extremely disturbing to the fit of the whole model of the other three well-fitting factors
(GFI=0.607; RMR=0.107; RMSEA=0.128; TLI=0.825; IFI=0.879; CFI=0.873; PGFI=0.498;
PNFI=0.470). Workers are likely not able to judge market factors consistently, so their
answers are uncertain, vitiating the model performance. Therefore, we decided to eliminate
the market factor, and our empirical tests rely on this filtered and normalized database (Table
4).

Table 4

5.2. Practices of lean production

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

The aggregation of the LP variables was prepared by an EFA principal component procedure
with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. Six lean production practices were extracted
(KMO: 0.590; Bartlett sig.: 0.000, TVE: 76.961) (Table 5).

Table 5

Every variable has a high loading on a single factor (the lowest is 0.699) and there are no
multiple or unclear fit, as the second-highest loadings do not exceed 0.4, as Fornell and
Larcker (1981) suggest.

5.3. Results
LP practices are compared in linear regression models by the CVF culture factors. These
analyses are performed on both a SF culture level (P1) and an SF subcultural level (P2).

5.3.1. Shop floor culture

P1 assumes that LP practices are influenced by a multidimensional SF culture. The impact of
culture types on LP practices are shown in Table 6 and in Figure 6 (a). The clan culture type
affects only the Information LP practice (p<0.001, =0.658), and its model is significant
(p<0.01, overall F is 9.637) with a good explanatory measure of R2 (0.662). Work
organization is explained by adhocracy culture type (p<0.001, =0.485), and its model is also
significant (p<0.05, overall F is 3.631). Table 6 shows that hierarchy culture type impacts

14
 Flow and quality (p<0.01, =0.335). However, the regression equation of this LP practice is
not significant (p=0.091, F=2.317).
Table 6

According to our results, LP practices are impacted only by two culture types, clan and
adhocracy because the market culture type was omitted from the CVF model and the
hierarchy culture type does not affect LP practices. Therefore, P1 is partially supported.

5.3.3. Shop floor subcultures influence on lean production practices

P2 assumes that LP practices are influenced by SF subcultures.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

The existence of an SF subculture would mean that there are groups with different value
orientations, even at the worker level. The search for subcultures was made using a K-means
cluster analysis, as recommended (Lord et al. 2008). Factors of EFA are used as the variables
from the original CVF methodology.
Three well-defined SF subcultures were found (Table 7 and Figure 5). Each SF subculture is
named after its dominant (i.e., highest score) culture types characteristics (see Figure 2). For
example, regulation is a vital element of a hierarchy culture type, so if an SF subculture is
dominated by the hierarchy culture type, it is called the Regulation subculture in order to
differentiate it from the basic culture type. 22% of the respondents belong to the Regulation
subculture. This group is the most separate from the other SF subcultures. According to Table
7, 43% of the sample belongs to the Innovation subculture dominated by adhocracy culture
type. While adhocracy culture type has the highest score in Innovation subculture, it has two
dominant culture types (hierarchy and adhocracy). 35% of the sample belongs to the
Participation subculture. This SF subculture is dominated by the clan culture type. According
to these results, three distinct SF subcultures exist; therefore, P2 can be analysed.

Table 7

Figure 5

Let us see how LP practices are impacted by culture types in the existing SF subcultures. As
Figure 6 (b-d) indicate, in the Innovation subculture only hierarchy has a significant impact on

15
 LP practices. It explains Information (p<0.01, =0.669) and Maintenance (p<0.05, =0.56) LP
practices. These regression equations are significant (F=6.452, R2=0.563; F=5.08, R2=0.504).
It also relates to Flow and quality LP practice, but this link is not significant. In the
Participation subculture, the only influential culture type is the clan culture. It impacts Flow
and quality LP practice (p<0.001, =1.327; p<0.001, F=15.472, R2=0.838). Finally, in the
Regulation subculture, Work organization is affected significantly (p<0.01, =0.836) by the
adhocracy culture type (p<0.05, F=8.171, R2=0.831). Based on these results, P2 is supported
because each SF subculture (perceived by workers) has a different impact on LP practices.

Figure 6
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

6. Discussion
Current work is built on perceptions of workers, which is a rarely applied approach in OM.
The lack of SF culture studies regarding LP practices motivated us to conduct a single case
study. Based on our findings, analytic generalization can lead to new theoretical insights, as
summarized in Table 8.

Table 8

First, our findings at SF culture level only partially support the influence of
multidimensionality in the lean context. Out of the four culture types, only two have a relevant
impact on LP practices in our research: adhocracy and clan. These two culture types are also
the most influential in Prajogo and McDermotts (2005) or Dellana and Hausers (2000)
works on the association of OC and TQM. The similarity of the results is not surprising
because TQM is usually an integral part of LP systems and because our case company also
uses many TQM-related practices (see Table 2).
Our findings did not assign any role to the hierarchy culture type, unlike Prajogo and
McDermott (2005), Dellana and Hauser (2000) or Gambi et al. (2015), who found (a minor
but still) significant impact of OC on TQM, but in accordance with Zu et al. (2010).
Comparing our results to the AMT-related literature, both the adhocracy culture (Zammuto
and OConnor, 1992; Khazanchi et al., 2007) and the clan culture (McDermott and Stock,
1999) types were found to be important. Therefore, we conclude that at our case companys
SF-level workers perceive that only flexibility-oriented culture types have a real impact on LP
practices. Due to the rapidly changing internal, plant-level environment (new practices,

16
 continuous changes, and worker involvement), these organizational culture types provide
good support for LP implementations and/or adaptations to changes.
In our case company, SF culture impacts the information flows and work organization issues
of LP. The clan culture type increases trust among people, supporting open and rapid
information exchanges. The adhocracy culture type supports the improvement activities of
teams. Both culture types provide a good background to LP for flexibility. Altogether, SF-
level results show that LP does not necessarily require a multidimensional organizational
culture.
Second, our study justifies the existence of SF subcultures and stresses the importance of
analysing groups value orientations within organizations. More interestingly, subcultures
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

extend a possible interpretation of multidimensionality because the impact of culture types

varies on the different levels of analysis.

Table 9

As presented in Table 9, at the SF level, there are two influential culture types. However, at
the SF subculture level, there are three influential culture types. These findings altogether
mean that LP is impacted by a special multidimensional SF culture: each culture type relates
to a particular SF subculture, where it influences a particular LP practice. This implies that the
fragmented SF subcultural composition bolsters the multidimensional support for LP. In
practice, it may mean that different worker groups follow different values and are therefore
open to different LP practices. Managers, however, work with all these groups; in their eyes,
the whole organization can follow a multidimensional OC, so their answers in previous
studies (almost every one discussed before) are simply another perspective/level of the same
phenomenon. It shows the importance of more deeply examining organizations when the
impact of OC is analysed because, at lower levels, there might be significant differences
(Losonci et al., 2011).
Finally, it is worth looking at the relevant linkages between culture types and LP practices. At
the SF level, out of the six LP practices, only two were influenced: Information by clan, and
Work organization by adhocracy. Different linkages can be identified at the SF subculture
levels; however, all but one of these linkages are one to one linkages. Previous studies
(Prajogo and McDermott, 2005, Zu et al. 2010) supposed that all MPC practices are somehow
influenced by culture types; in some cases, a specific practice is influenced by more than one
culture type. Thus, our findings show a weaker embeddedness of LP practices into SF culture

17
 than cross-sectional managerial perceptions previously indicated. These differences in
findings may be the result of a real tension among different subcultures, as also noted by
Prajogo and McDermott (2005).

7. Implications
Our findings should warn managers that employees at different hierarchical levels can
perceive differences regarding the influence of OC on LP. Managers have complex linkages
in their minds about how OC impacts LP. We argue that at the SF level and especially at SF
subculture levels there are rather simple linkages between culture and LP practices. Two
important managerial tasks follow from this statement. Organizations should devote resources
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

to understand how employees see the actual OC and to seek dominant subcultures. These
tasks could help managers to avoid challenges originating from building lean transition
milestones on their own OC perceptions.
Workers perception of OCs impact on LP practices still bears a special multidimensionality.
It means that multidimensionality decisively originates from subcultures: each culture type
impacts LP practice(s) only within a particular SF subculture, at least in our single case. The
existence of distinctive SF subcultures would enable managers to focus exclusively on values
appreciated by the specific SF subculture. This interpretation of findings assumes the
possibility of an easier lean transition. However, we believe that the co-existence of
distinctive SF subcultures leads to a context that is difficult to cope with when building a
homogenous OC to support LP.
Lean experts usually highlight that instead of copying LP from a mature lean producer, an
organization should tailor LP to its own context. Managers with general LP and OC
knowledge could be successful if they are also familiar with their own organizations
specialties. We argue that a critical step supporting LP adaption is the proper understanding of
organizations own OC (SF culture(s)).
Based on these findings, we conclude that the existence and possible impact of subcultures
underline the importance of different OC perspectives (e.g., pluralist). These perspectives
might challenge the assumptions of a homogenous culture and the use of the opinion of one
(or few) respondent(s) per plant to assess OC.

8. Conclusions
The high failure rate of LP implementations necessitates the empirical study of supporting OC.
Our empirical work adopts CVF for this purpose.

18
 Moreover, while the OM literature usually uses a managerial viewpoint, this work studies SF
culture and SF subcultures from the workers perspective. To expand available academic
findings to a new context, we applied a single case design with a typical and revelatory
company. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first empirical attempt to understand the
nature of SF culture influencing LP practices.
Based on our single case design, analytic generalization led to new theoretical insights
regarding the influence of OC on LP practices. The special multidimensional impact of OC on
LP practices originates from three different SF subcultures, which require a great deal of
attention from managers. Furthermore, at the SF (sub)culture level, the relationship between
OC and LP practices are much less complex than at the managerial level.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

The study of SF subcultures requires many respondents from the same organization. Because
the majority of the employees responded to our questionnaire, the analyses are reliable and
valid at the plant level. However, in future research, a higher absolute number of respondents
would be preferred.
Studies involving new plants using a single case design could provide further details,
especially if comparing managers and workers approaches in the same unit becomes
possible. It is a common opinion that persons on the middle managerial level (supervisors,
lean skippers) are key stakeholders in lean transition. Scholars should understand how the
middle layer transfers managerial perceptions to the worker level and approaches LP.
The study adopted CVF to assess SF culture. Further methodologies could also be considered
in lean studies (e.g., the organizational culture profile adopted by Baird et al., 2011).
A further research opportunity is examining whether there is any relationship between the
multidimensionality of OC and the success of LP in terms of operational indicators. It is
possible that Toyota is successful due to the multidimensionality of its SF (sub)culture(s), and
if a company does not have such a culture, lean transformation might be less successful.
Overall, the value congruence of possible co-existing subcultures (e.g., managers and SF,
among SF subcultures) and their congruence of organizational readiness (Gurumurthy et al.,
2013) are promising topics.
The assumption of the impact of OC on LP practices can also be challenged. On one hand,
Shook (2010) argued that the implementation of Toyotas system changed OC at NUMMI, so
LP influenced OC in this case. On the other hand, Powell (1995) stated that organizations
capacity to transform their culture via TQM is mainly unrealistic. Therefore, future case study
research should focus on the interplay between OC and LP practices.
One should note that national culture can also have an impact on the relationship between OC

19
 and LP practices. Anglo-Saxon countries national cultures considerably differ from the
national culture of our case companys operational context (House et al. 2004, Gelei et al.
2015). Thus, our findings must be handled with care when applied in a different national
setting. The impact of national culture could be best investigated in a multinational company
using a multiple case study design.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

20
 References
Badurdeen, F., Wijekoon, K. and Marksberry, P. (2011), An analytical hierarchy process-
based tool to evaluate value systems for lean transformations, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-65.
Baird, K., Hu, K.J. and Reeve, R. (2011), The relationship between organizational culture,
total quality management practices and operational performance, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 789-814.
Cameron, K.S. and Ettington, D.R. (1988), The conceptual foundations of organisational
culture, In: Higher Education: Handbook of theory and Research. Agathon, New York. pp.
356-396.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E., (2006), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.
(Based on the Competing Values Framework). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, US (Revised
Edition)
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E., (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture
(Based on the Competing Values Framework). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, US (Third
Edition)
Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1988), Behavioral Norms and Expectations. A
quantitative approach to the assessment of organizational culture, Group & Organization
Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 245-273.
Dahlgraad, J.J. and Dahlgraad-Park, S.M. (2006) Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM
and company culture, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 263-281.
Dellana, S.A. and Hauser, R.D. (2000), Corporate Cultures Impact on a Strategic Approach
to Quality, Mid-American Journal of Business, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 9-20.
Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. and Mauriel, J.J. (2000), A framework for linking culture and
improvement initiatives in organizations Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 4,
pp. 850-863.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, No.
1, pp. 39-50.
Gambi, L.D.N., Boer, H., Gerolamo, M.C., Jrgensen, F. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2015), The
relationship between organizational culture and quality techniques, and its impact on
operational performance, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 35, No. 10, pp. 1460-1484.

21
 Gelei , A., Losonci, D. and Matyusz, Z. (2015), Lean production and leadership attributes
the case of Hungarian production managers, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 477-500.
Gurumurthy, A., Mazumdar, P. and Muthusubramanian, S. (2013), Graph theoretic approach
for analysing the readiness of an organisation for adapting lean thinking: A case
study, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 396-427.
Heritage, B., Pollock, C. and Roberts, L. (2014) Validation of the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument. PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 1-10.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), Learning to evolve A review of contemporary
lean thinking, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24., No.
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

10., pp. 994-1011.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1984), Hofstedes Culture Dimensions - An Independent
Validation Using Rokeachs Value Survey, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 15,
No. 4, pp. 417-433.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M.,Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds.) (2004), Culture,
leadership, and organizations. The GLOBE study of 62 societes. SAGE Oakland
Howard, L.W. (1998), Validating the competing values model as a representation of
organizational cultures, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 6, No. 3,
pp. 231-250.
Huber, V.L. and Hyer, N.L. (1985), The Human Factor in Cellular Manufacturing, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 213-228.
Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M.W. and Boyer, K.K. (2007), Innovation-supportive culture: The
impact of organizational values on process innovation, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 871-884.
Liker J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way. McGraw-Hill, New York
Liker, J.K and Hoseus, M. (2008), Toyota Culture. The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Losonci, D., Demeter, K. and Jenei, I. (2011), Factors influencing employee perceptions in
lean transformations, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131, No. 1, pp.
30-43.
Lord, K.R., Putrevu, S. and Shi, Y.Z. (2008), Cultural influences on cross-border
vacationing, Journal of Business Research, No. 61, No. 3, pp. 183-190.
Mann, D. (2010), Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions. Productivity
Press, 2nd edition

22
 Martin, J. (1992), Cultures in Organisations. Three perspectives. Oxford University Press,
New York
McDermott, C.M. and Stock, G.N. (1999), Organizational Culture and Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Implementation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17,
No. 5, pp. 521-533.
Naor, M., Goldstein, S.M., Linderman, K.W. and Schroeder, R.G. (2008), The role of culture
as driver of quality management and performance: infrastructure versus core quality
practices, Decision Sciences, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 671-702.
de Menezes, L.M., Wood, S. and Gelade, G. (2010), The integration of human resource and
operation management practices and its link with performance: A longitudinal latent class
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

study. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 455-471.

Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacristn-Diaz, M. (2012), Learning on lean: a review of thinking
and research, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32, No.
5, pp. 551-582.
Ouchi, W.B. (1981), Theory Z. Addison-Wesley Pub
Pakdil, F. and Leonard, K.M. (2014), Criteria for a lean organisation: Development of a lean
assessment tool, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52, No. 15, pp. 4587-
4607.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management. Simon & Schuster,
New York
Powell, T. (1995), Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and
empirical study, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 16., No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, D.M. (2005), The relationship between total quality
management practices and organizational culture, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29, No. 3,
pp. 363-377.
Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991), The psychometric of the competing values culture
instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life, In:
Woodman, R. and Passmore, W. (eds.), Research in organizational change and development.
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San
Francisco

23
 Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), Defining and developing measures of lean production,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Shook, J. (2010), How to change culture: lessons from NUMMI, MITSloan Management
Review, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 62-68.
Srlie, T. and Sexton, H.C. (2001), The factor structure of The Ways of Coping
Questionnaire and the process of coping in surgical patients, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 961-975.
Spear, S. and Bowen H.K. (1999), Decoding the DNA of Toyota Production System,
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 5, pp. 96-106.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using multivariate statistics. Allyn and Bacon,
Boston, MA. (5th edition)
Toyota (2015a), Overview. Available at: http://www.toyota-
global.com/company/profile/overview/, accessed 31 March 2015
Toyota (2015b), Worldwide operations. Available at:
http://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/corporate/companyinformation/worldwide, accessed 31
March 2015
de Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), Could lean production job design be intrinsically
motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 99-123.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2003), Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your
corporation. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Wong, W.P. and Cheah, C.H. (2011), Linking Organizational Culture to Lean
Implementation in the Malaysian Electrical and Electronics Industry: A Conceptual
Framework, Advances In Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 50-57.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Sage. Fourth Edition
Zammuto, R.F. and OConnor, E.J. (1992), Gaining Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
Benefits: The Roles of Organizational Design and Culture, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 701-728.
Zu, X., Robbins, T.L. and Fredendall, L.D. (2010), Mapping the critical links between
organizational culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 123, No. 1, pp. 86-106.

24
 Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

25
 Figure 1: Decomposition of organizational culture

Integration/ Differentiation/ Fragmentation/

Perspective of OC Pluralist Anarchist
Unitarist

Main characteristic essential unity existence of diverse individuals values

subcultures and norms

Individuals in OC
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Note: dotted lines represent the borders of OC or organizational subculture; white dots represent workers; black dots represent managers
 Figure 2: The four culture types of CVF

Flexibility

Clan Adhocracy

participation, teamwork, innovation, growth,

empowerment, concern creativity, new resources,
for ideas, people, entrepreneurship-type
commitment, facilitator- leader
type leader
control, centralization, efficiency, task focus,
Internal focus External focus
stability, predictable clarity, performance, goal
outcomes, order, orientation, competition,
regulation, administer- achievement-type leader
type leader
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Hierarchy Market

Control

Sources: based on Cameron and Quinn (2011), Zu et al. (2010), Prajogo and McDermott (2005)
Note: we adopted the terms for each culture type developed by Cameron and Quinn (2011).
 Table 1: The impact of organizational culture on modern production concepts

Authors MPC Organizational Sample Geographical Key results

culture concept focus
Dellana and Quality CVF (based on 219 respondents USA Higher Baldrige
Hauser (2000) management Quinn and (middle to upper- scores tend to be
(Malcolm Rohrbaugh, middle significantly
Baldrige 1983) managers) and related to the
National interviewing six Adhocracy and
Award) quality managers Clan cultural
types (p. 9)

Prajogo and Quality Competing 194 managers Australia TQM reflects

McDermott management Values from multidimensional
(2005) (Malcolm Framework manufacturing culture, different
Baldrige (based on and non- subsets of TQM
National Denison and manufacturing practices are
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Award) Spreitzer, 1991) sectors determined by

different types of
cultures; the
coexistence of
control and
people-oriented
elements
Naor et al. TQM CVF (based on 189 plants (3 South Korea, Infrastructure
(2008) Quinn and supervisors, 3 Finland, quality
Rohrbaugh, operators, and an Japan, management
1983) HR manager) Germany, practices are
Sweden, more influenced
USA by organizational
culture than core
quality
management
practices
Zu et al. TQM Competing 226 companies USA Clan and market
(2010) Values (production or culture types are
Framework process found to be the
(based on development important culture
Quinn and manager) types for overall
Spreitzer, 1991) TQM/Six Sigma
implementation
Gambi et al. Quality Competing 250 Denmark, Market and clan
(2015) management Values manufacturing Brazil culture types are
(commonly Framework firms (quality or the strongest
used quality production predictor of
techniques) managers) quality
techniques
McDermott AMT Competing 97 manufacturing North An organization
and Stock Values plants (plant America characterized
(1999) Model managers and by group culture
(based on Quinn vice presidents of can find value in
and Spreitzer, manufacturing) AMT
1991)
Khazanchi et AMT Based on 110 plants (1 North Innovation-
al. (2007) McDermott and manager and 1 America supportive
Stock (1999) operator most culture may
closely to AMT) appear
paradoxical
because of
flexibility
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

882)
existing in

values and
underlying

practice (p.
and control co-
 Figure 3: Transfer of modern production concepts findings to the lean production context and
to a different organizational culture perspective

Current work: empirical analysis of

Literature the influence of SF culture LP
practices

Empirical studies applying validated Only theoretical considerations on

Available OM
OC measurement tools focus on AMT LP; No empirical study; Validated OC
knowledge
and TQM measurement tools are not applied

No assessment is available; however,

Unitarist perspective; homogeneous
OC is assessed based on the crucial role of workers in LP
Approach of OC
managers responses underlines the importance of the
pluralist perspective (subculture)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Hypotheis Findings regarding the impact of OC on MPC practices are adopted to the
development lean context at the worker level: assuming (1) a homogenous shop floor
culture and (2) the co-existence of shop floor subcultures

Individuals in OC 1

Note: dotted lines represent the borders of OC or organizational subcultures; white dots represent workers; black dots represent managers
 Table 2: Internally focused lean production items perceived by workers

Operators
No. Lean production items
Average N
1 Employees identify defective parts or services. 3.96 51
2 Employees can stop the process if they find defective parts, supplies, or services. 4.55 51
3 When a defect is found, employees responsible for the defect can correct it. 3.98 51
4 Processes are controlled by measuring inside or during the process. 4.40 50
5 Measuring is done after each process. 4.06 51
6 Measuring is done only after the product or service is complete. 2.18 50
7 Process-focused management is employed throughout the firm. 3.67 51
8 Information is displayed continuously in dedicated spaces. 4.57 51
9 Oral information is provided regularly. 3.78 51
10 Written information is provided regularly. 3.57 51
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

11 There is a total commitment to eliminating waste throughout the firm. 3.84 51

12 We have frequent feedback from our customers regarding quality and service. 4.16 51
13 We use kanban, squares, or containers of signals for production or service control. 3.78 51
14 Equipment is grouped to produce a continuous flow of products or service. 3.80 51
15 Equipment maintenance records are posted at workstations to share with employees. 4.63 51
16 SPC techniques are used to reduce process or service variances. 4.14 44
17 5S is integrated into the management system. 4.56 50
18 Root-cause problem solving is integrated into the management system. 3.87 46
19 We use a cellular manufacturing or service system. 4.43 47
20 Standard operating procedures (Procedure Manuals) are readily available in all areas. 4.04 50
21 All operations are standardized. 3.84 50
22 Employees drive suggestion programs. 2.72 50
23 Employees lead product, service, and process improvement efforts. 2.29 51
24 Team leadership rotates among team members. 1.71 51

Note: 1- strongly disagree, 5-strongly agree

 Table 3: Results of the exploratory factor analysis
Factor No. of items KMO TVE (%) Cronbachs Minimal
alpha factor loading
Clan 5 0.804 63.068 0.852 1.00
Adhocracy 2 0.500 79.641 0.736 1.00
Market 2 0.500 74.088 0.649 0.91
Hierarchy 4 0.784 65.428 0.818 0.86
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Figure 4: Structure of the consistent model

 Table 4: Model fit tests
Statistic Value Threshold Result
Absolute fit
2/df 1.08 3 good
GFI 0.85 > 0.8 good
RMR 0.056 < 0.08 good
RMSEA 0.04 < 0.1 good
Incremental fit
TLI 0.98 > 0.9 good
IFI 0.986 > 0.9 good
CFI 0.985 > 0.9 good
Parsimonious fit
PGFI 0.542 > 0.5 good
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

PCFI 0.732 > 0.5 good

PNFI 0.624 > 0.5 good
 Table 5: Extraction of lean production practices
Rotated
Lean production
Lean production variables factor
practices
loadings
Equipment is grouped to produce a continuous flow of products or
0.800
services.
Flow and quality SPC techniques are used to reduce process or service variances. 0.792
Measuring is done only after the product or service is complete. -0.699
5S is integrated into the management system. 0.633
Written information is provided regularly. 0.834
Information Process-focused management is employed throughout the firm. 0.797
Oral information is provided regularly. 0.762
Processes are controlled by measuring inside or during the process. 0.812
Cell process Measuring is done after each process. 0.768
We use a cellular manufacturing or service system. 0.705
Team leadership rotates among team members. 0.856
Work organization
Employees lead product, service, and process improvement efforts. 0.800
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Employees can stop the process if they find defective parts, supplies, or
0.830
Defect detection services.
When a defect is found, employees responsible for the defect can correct it. 0.804
Equipment maintenance records are posted at workstations to share with
Maintenance 0.909
employees.
 Table 6: Regression equations shop floor culture
Independents LP practices

Flow and quality

Defect detection

Maintenance
organization
Cell process
Information

Work
(parameters)
constant 0 0.102 -0.012 -0.028 -0.024 0.038
Culture type

Hierarchy 0.335* 0.131 0.161 -0.026 0.312 0.307

Clan 0.062 0.658*** -0.039 0.151 -0.036 0.053
Adhocracy 0.182 0.059 0.1 0.485** 0.258 -0.196
Overall F 2.317 9.637*** 0.453 3.631* 2.391 1.474
R2 0.158 0.662 0.035 0.227 0.162 0.107
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, model is significant, independent variable is significant
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)
 Table 7: Cluster centres and the distribution of shop floor subcultures
Shop floor subculture
SF level
Innovation Participation Regulation
Clan 3.375 3.181 2.636 3.147
Culture

Adhocracy 3.795 2.944 3.091 3.343

types

Market 0 0 0 0
Hierarchy 3.761 3.042 3.386 3.426
Number of respondents 22 18 11 51
(% of total) (43) (35) (22) (100)
Note: bold dominant culture type
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

Figure 5: Shop floor culture and shop floor subcultures

 Figure 6: Impact of culture types on lean production practices
(a) Shop floor level

(b) Innovation subculture (c) Regulation subculture (d) Participation subculture

Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)
 Table 8: Findings the impact of shop floor culture on lean production practices (compared
to previous literature)

Production
TQM and AMT Lean production
concept
Viewpoint mainly (few) managers (many) workers
Unit of analysis plants a single plant
Methodology survey single case design based on a survey
shop floor
Level of analysis organizational culture shop floor culture
subculture(s)
Impact of OC on
production
YES YES YES
concepts
practices
many culture types
NO within a
impact production
Multi- PARTIALLY subculture
practices at the same YES (three, four)
dimensionality SUPPORTED (two) YES subcultures
time (no. of culture
together
types)
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)

clan, adhocracy and

Most influential clan, market, and
culture types
a specific production
practice is influenced
Embeddedness of by many culture types;
the same culture type
practices in OC
influences many
production practices
adhocracy and clan hierarchy, in different
adhocracy
SF subcultures
NO, one culture type
influences one LP
NO, only two direct one practice in each SF
YES to one linkage
subculture
 Table 9: Links between lean production practices and culture types
Impacted LP practices by culture type
at the shop floor level at the shop floor subcultural
level
Flow and quality - Clan (P)
Cell process -
Information Clan Hierarchy (I)
Work Organization Adhocracy Adhocracy (R)
Defect detection -
Maintenance - Hierarchy (I)
Note: (I) Innovation SF subculture; (R) Regulation SF subculture; (P) Participation SF subculture
Downloaded by University of Newcastle At 20:45 08 January 2017 (PT)