A democratic lean work system

Lean production can be combined with industrial democracy to create a coherent work system. Summarizing the previous sections, table 6 shows a work system that is democratic lean and internally coherent.

Main dimensions

Technical

Short cycle times Standardization of tasks

Just-in-time labour process with tight dependencies Job rotation

Integration of indirect tasks

Systematic continuous improvement

Governance

Hierarchical coordination and control Narrow spans of control

Expectations for supervisors’ behaviour are decided through a participatory process

Continuous improvement also targets ergonomics, safety and working environment

Normative Social partnership; balance of power

Democratic values Support systems

Whole-organization decision-making process

Labour representation on company boards Labour representation in committees Training and development

Jobs are designed to allow for learning Job rotation for multi-skilling

On the job training by supervisors

Industrial relations

All workers organized in a single labour union Collective bargaining

Union–management cooperation in rationalization and organizational development

Unregulated representative participation Selection, reward and appraisal Permanent employment

Seniority- and competence-based pay Table 6: A democratic lean work system

Compared to the traditional democratic work system (table 1), the technical and governance dimensions have been modified to incorporate lean-production practices. In the normative dimension, “good work” is left out in anticipation of a concept that indicates decent quality of working life within the framework of rational production (Johansson and Abrahamsson,

2009). Systematic job rotation and on-the-job training by supervisors have been added to the “training and development” support system. The democratic lean work system is distinct from the lean work system (table 2), with its emphasis on representative participation and limitations to managerial powers. The industrial-relations system remains traditionally Norwegian, along with the support systems’ “whole-company decision-making process” and “selection, reward and appraisal”.

The possibility of democratic lean supports the optimistic thesis about the human consequences of rationalization (Adler, 1992). There is a trade-off between rationalization and autonomy, but not necessarily between rationalization and worker participation (Ingvaldsen, 2013). Consistent with the thesis about “technization of work” (Barley, 1996;

Kern and Schumann, 1984), technological development will lead to more-skilled workers and reintegration of manual and mental labour. However, contrary to the thesis’ prediction, this reintegration will follow from workers’ participation in the design of work systems and collective procedures (Adler, 1993b; Springer, 1999), not through the re-emergence of autonomous work (Schumann, 1998).

Democratic lean is distinct from the high-performance work system (HPWS) model advocated by labour reformers in Europe and the US (Appelbaum and Batt, 1993; Boxall and Macky, 2009). While the HPWS model suggests that high performance is attained through psychological mechanisms of motivation and commitment (Evans and Davis, 2005; Ramsay et al., 2000), democratic lean emphasizes the importance of a technically rational work organization (Ohno, 1988; Taylor, 1967). A strong emphasis on motivation and commitment tends to reproduce prescriptions of autonomy and elimination of supervisory positions (Bacon and Blyton, 2000; Evans and Davis, 2005). As shown in this thesis, this is hardly the way forth for large-scale industrial production. While some forms of direct participation are directly related to technical performance (Kim et al., 2010), the extensive and substantive participation of democratic lean is justified socially, not economically. It is about retaining the democratic qualities of the Norwegian working life, including decent quality of working life, high wage levels and cooperative industrial relations. While there is “one best way” of organizing the technical dimension of the work system (Womack et al., 1990), and this technical work organization to some extent determines the mode of governance (Ingvaldsen and Benders, 2013), the broader social organization and mode of decision making is not technologically determined (Boyer et al., 1998). As argued by Lowe et al. (1997, p. 796), while “there may be generic advantages from operating with technical systems that have low buffers and produce right first-time, the social systems which support this may be highly varied.” Hence, the scope of organizational choice, although not so broad as Trist (1981) envisioned, can be used to design work systems with extensive participation.

The concept of democratic lean resonates the most with the socialization thesis of Adler (2007; 2012; Adler and Heckscher, 2006; Ingvaldsen, 2013). In the course of technological development and rationalization, the scope of collaborative decision making expands, albeit unevenly. As an instance of socialization, democratic lean may also be threatened by global capitalism. The concluding section suggests how future research may empirically investigate democratic lean in the Norwegian working life, and the forces that encourage and discourage its realization.

7 Conclusion and implications

The Norwegian model of work organization based on industrial democracy and worker autonomy is celebrated. But in the spirit of the protestant ethic, the celebration should be temperate. Work systems based on extensive autonomy tend to upset production flow and organization learning. Hence, the democratic work system of the 1960s should not remain the ideal for how to organize operations in Norwegian industry.

Best practice for large-scale production was pioneered by Toyota Motor Company.

Lean production may not be the “end of history” (Berggren, 1993). But Ohno’s (1988) imperative to continuously and systematically scrutinize the labour process for improvements cannot be dismissed as managerial fashion or an outcome of capitalist irrationality; it is the preliminary culmination of the scientific-technical rationality which has taken us from petty handicraft production to high-quality mass production. Norwegian industry is in the process of adopting lean-production practices. Coupled with strategic differentiation, innovative product design, extensive automation and rational value-chain management, lean-production practices will help Norwegian industry thrive in global competition.

Lean production does not imply the end of industrial democracy. On the contrary, the combination of a tightly coupled lean labour process and Norwegian labour institutions will enable workers to participate in work design and company governance. A democratic lean work system not only reflects a socially desirable compromise between capital and labour and is a safeguard against autocracy and coercive management; democratic lean implies high skills, high wages and a decent quality of working life.