PurposeFrontline teams are at the centre of lean transformations, but the teams also transform as they implement lean. This study examines these changes and seeks to understand how lean relates to team psychological safety and learning.Design/methodology/approachThis research setting is the Romanian division of a leading European energy company. The authors collected team-level audit and survey data, which the authors used to test the effect of lean implementation on team psychological safety and learning. The authors’ team-level data are complemented with qualitative interviews conducted with team members and headquarters leaders.FindingsThe results of the regression analyses show that leanness is positively associated with team psychological safety, which is in turn positively associated with learning. Thus, this research provides evidence that leanness – mediated by team psychological safety – increases team learning.Practical implicationsLean changes team dynamics and learning positively by ensuring and promoting an emotionally sound work environment with clear team structures, an appropriate level of autonomy, and strong leadership.Originality/valueThis paper contributes evidence of important psychological mechanisms that characterise team-level lean implementation. Particularly, the authors highlight how team psychological safety mediates the relationship between leanness and team learning.

Many firms launch consolidated lean initiatives across all their service units, but because services differ, mandated lean practices may have a poor fit with the receiving unit. Whereas plenty of research has investigated the fit of lean implementation at the service industry level, this is the first to delineate how standard lean service practices fit different service types. Taking a contingency theory perspective, we study a leading European utility company comprising distinct service types. Using purposeful sampling, we interview 36 employees from 15 different teams representing three different service types – professional services, service factories and service shops – and 11 employees from the headquarters who are supporting these units in their lean transformation journeys. We also collect secondary data, including lean programme documentation and audit data. We find that one size does not fit all for lean service; there are important nuances to the relevance of standard lean service practices across different service types. Ten propositions are put forward suggesting how standard lean practices need to be adapted to fit the context of different service types. The findings reject the idea that all service units can progress along the same trajectory in lean service programmes. This paper informs managers how lean service programmes can be tailored to increase the fit with different service types.