The role of management in lean implementation: evidence from the pharmaceutical industry

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate how soft lean practices moderate the performance effects of hard lean practices. The authors provide new evidence from the pharmaceutical industry, which is characterized by a highly regulated and technical environment and has been largely uncharted in the lean literature.Design/methodology/approachBased on a review of the literature, the authors define a set of soft and hard lean practices. The authors test the hypotheses using factor analysis and moderated hierarchical linear regression on a unique dataset containing survey data and real performance measures of 351 pharmaceutical plants.FindingsThe results show that soft lean practices can be both enabling and constraining. When management engages in performance measurement, visualisation and employee empowerment the relationship between hard lean practices and performance is positively moderated. On the other hand, when managers emphasise goal setting and work standardisation the performance outcomes are reduced.Practical implicationsEffective lean managers build organisational commitment by motivating other employees to implement lean. They use performance measurement, visualisation and employee empowerment to focus on the “why”. Less effective managers engage in commanding and micro-management. Such managers focus on the “what” by using practices like goal setting and work standardisation.Originality/valueThis article contributes to the literature on lean management by empirically testing the moderator-variable interaction effects between soft and hard lean practices. In addition, it adds new evidence from the important pharmaceutical industry.

The link between lean manufacturing and Industry 4.0 for product development process: a systemic approach

“…Those subdivisions follow previous LM literature, which categorises soft practices as “LM introduction”, hard tools as “LM practices” and organisational aspects as “LM implementation” (Shah and Ward, 2007; Bortolotti et al. , 2015; Januszek et al. , 2023).…”

The role of managerial perceptions and behaviors across hierarchical levels during lean implementation

“…Accordingly, the role of managers-who are responsible for bridging the gap between lean tools and lean thinking (Mann, 2009)-has increasingly come into focus in recent lean studies (e.g. Arellano et al, 2021;Galeazzo et al, 2021;Januszek et al, 2022;Netland et al, 2019). While recognized in a few pioneering studies (Emiliani, 1998;Spear and Bowen, 1999), leadership has recently been rediscovered as one of lean's most important success factors.…”

“…Accordingly, the role of managers—who are responsible for bridging the gap between lean tools and lean thinking (Mann, 2009)—has increasingly come into focus in recent lean studies (e.g. Arellano et al ., 2021; Galeazzo et al ., 2021; Januszek et al. , 2022; Netland et al ., 2019).…”

“…It has been suggested that a lack of understanding of the human factors that go into lean is one of the main reasons for the failure of lean programs (Losonci et al, 2017;Wiengarten et al, 2015). Scholars have recently started to address this gap by studying organizational infrastructure and behaviors during lean implementations (Bortolotti et al, 2015;Cadden et al, 2020;Camuffo and Gerli, 2018;Fenner et al, 2022;Galeazzo et al, 2017;Januszek et al, 2022;Netland et al, 2015Netland et al, , 2021Nielsen et al, 2018;Seidel et al, 2019;Tortorella et al, 2018;van Dun et al, 2017).…”

“…Scholars have recently started to address this gap by studying organizational infrastructure and behaviors during lean implementations (Bortolotti et al ., 2015; Cadden et al ., 2020; Camuffo and Gerli, 2018; Fenner et al. , 2022; Galeazzo et al ., 2017; Januszek et al. , 2022; Netland et al ., 2015, 2021; Nielsen et al ., 2018; Seidel et al ., 2019; Tortorella et al ., 2018; van Dun et al.…”