January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2002) 147–165c© World Scientific Publishing Company

THE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES

AND CONCEPTUAL CHASMS

STUART D. GREEN

Department of Construction Management & Engineering,The University of Reading, Whiteknights,P.O. Box 219, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK

s.d.green@reading.ac.uk

Received January 2001Revised April 2001

The Human Resource Management (HRM) implications of lean construction are consid-ered from a critical perspective. Construction academics have strangely ignored an exten-sive literature that equates lean production to a HRM regime of control, exploitation andsurveillance. The emphasis of lean thinking on eliminating waste and improving efficiencymakes it easy to absorb into the best practice agenda because it conforms to the existingdominant way of thinking. In common with countless other improvement initiatives, therhetoric of lean construction is heavy in the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others tobe more efficient. In the absence of an explicit consideration of the HRM implications, leanconstruction is doomed to repeat the mistakes of previous instrumentalist improvementrecipes. In the face of rapidly declining recruitment rates for built environment courses,this will do little to attract the intelligent and creative young people that the industry sobadly needs.

The tradition of Critical Management Studies (CMS) remains controversial within theconstruction management research community. Counter-criticisms offered by the propo-nents of lean construction are considered and the contribution to knowledge is defended.There is a tendency to suppress critical work on the basis that it lacks empirical evidenceand is one-sided in its argument. If these criteria were applied to the existing lean con-struction literature, many of the seminal contributions would not have been published.Whilst it is valid and important to criticise the methodology of critical research, it mustalso be recognized that there are methodological limitations associated with all researchparadigms. Different methodologies accentuate different aspects of reality.

Keywords: Lean construction; Human Resource Management; utilitarian instrumentalism;best practice; Critical Management Studies.

1. Introduction

The publication of the report of the Construction Task Force Rethinking Construc-

tion (DETR, 1998) has significantly shaped the current agenda for change in the UK

construction industry. The recommendations of Rethinking Construction (commonly

147

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

148 S. D. Green

known as the “Egan Report”) have received an almost unanimous endorsement from

the bodies that shape policy for the construction industry. Examples include the

Construction Clients’ Forum (CCF), the Construction Industry Board (CIB) and

the Government Construction Clients’ Panel (GCCP). The Movement for Innova-

tion (M4I) was established as a direct result of Rethinking Construction to deliver

the identified performance targets and to promote change. The Egan agenda places

an especially strong emphasis on the ideas of “lean thinking”, drawing heavily on

their supposed success in the car industry. The ideas of “lean production” were

originally encapsulated within the Toyota Manufacturing System and are well ar-

ticulated by Womack et al. (1990). Lean thinking subsequently became the generic

term to describe their universal application beyond manufacturing (Womack and

Jones, 1996). The ideas of lean thinking comprise a complex cocktail of ideas in-

cluding continuous improvement, flattened organization structures, teamwork, the

elimination of waste, efficient use of resources and cooperative supply chain man-

agement. Within the UK construction industry, the language of lean thinking has

since become synonymous with best practice.

The arguments presented in this paper are shaped by a sense of unease regarding

the one-sided nature of the current debate. The specific purpose is to challenge the

assumed neutrality of lean construction and to highlight the potentially regressive

impact on Human Resource Management (HRM). The development of a critical

perspective is seen to be an essential prerequisite to the establishment of a more

balanced and informed research agenda. Within the broad domain of management

studies, there has in recent years been a significant degree of discussion regard-

ing the validity and importance of critical research (e.g. Alvesson and Willmott,

1996; Alvesson and Deetz, 2000; Burrell, 2001; Fournier and Grey, 2000). This has

lead to the emergence of an identifiable sub-discipline labeled “Critical Manage-

ment Studies” (CMS). CMS is undoubtedly a fragmented and contested domain

that covers a multitude of ideas and a plurality of intellectual traditions (Fournier

and Grey, 2000). Nevertheless, the emergence of CMS has enriched academic de-

bate and provided an important counter-balance against the heavy managerialist

bias within the business school environment. In contrast, CMS has had little recog-

nition within the construction management research community. Given this lack

of exposure amongst construction academics, particular attention is given to the

counter-criticisms that are often directed at critical work. It is conceded to be im-

portant that critical researchers make no claim to have a “monopoly on the truth”.

Different research methodologies will inevitably accentuate different aspects of re-

ality. The development of a critical research perspective is ultimately justified in

terms of the wider cause of methodological reflexivity. Whilst it is recognized that

critical work is often associated with the Frankfurt School (Held, 1980), the author

makes no claim to be theoretically consistent with any single tradition of critical

thought.

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 149

2. HRM in the UK Construction Industry

There is an established dichotomy in the HRM literature between the “hard” model,

reflecting utilitarian instrumentalism, and the “soft” model reflecting developmental

humanism. The hard model of HRM sees humans as a resource to be “provided and

deployed” as necessary to achieve organizational objectives. In contrast, the soft

model of HRM treats human resources as valued assets who offer a source of com-

petitive advantage. In simple terms, the former comprises “command and control”

and the latter “empowerment and commitment”. This dichotomy is undoubtedly

an over-simplification of a complex field where rhetoric and reality are difficult to

separate (Legge, 1995). Many organizations undoubtedly apply elements of both.

Companies are also often fond of dressing up hard HRM in a soft rhetoric (Truss

et al., 1997). The key distinction lies in whether the emphasis is placed on the hu-

man, or the resource (Guest, 1987; Storey, 1992). The dichotomy between hard and

soft HRM is a direct descendant of McGregor’s (1960) Theory X and Theory Y.

Several previous studies have contended that the dominant culture of the

construction industry consistently emphasises the hard model of HRM. The 1998

Workplace Employee Relation Survey (Cully et al., 1999) compared three measures

of employee participation across twelve industrial sectors: (i) non-managerial par-

ticipation in problem-solving groups, (ii) operation of suggestion schemes and (iii)

formal survey of employee attitudes during the last five years. In the construction in-

dustry, participation in problem-solving groups occurred in only 21% of workplaces.

This was lower than any other sector with the exception of “other community ser-

vices” (17%). The construction industry was bottom in the other two categories by

a significant margin. Whilst the high degree of sub-contracting in the construction

industry may account in part for these results, research by Druker et al. (1996)

concludes that the hard model of HRM dominates not only for the construction la-

bor force, but also for professional and managerial staff. Coffey and Langford (1998)

further observe a low level of employee participation in construction, whilst conclud-

ing that there are no inherent reasons that prevent effective participation, even at

trade level. The European survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers/Cranfield

(Brewster and Hegewisch, 1994) showed that the status and influence of HRM on

corporate decision making was lower in the UK construction industry than in other

European construction industries. These results confirm Hillebrandt and Cannon’s

(1990) previous findings on the low status of the personnel function within UK

contractors. Recent research into career opportunities for women in construction

companies has further pointed to a widespread discriminatory culture in the UK

construction industry (Dainty et al., 2000).

The conclusion that emerges from the above is clear. The UK construction in-

dustry is characterized by an institutionalized regressive approach to HRM. The

human resource is primarily conceptualized as a cost. This long-standing allegiance

to hard HRM explains the popularity of management improvement recipes based

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

150 S. D. Green

on metaphors such as “cutting out the waste”, “belt tightening” and “becoming

lean”. The question that arises is the extent to which the current vogue for lean

construction will serve to reinforce the industry’s established culture of “command

and control”.

3. An Industry in Crisis

The dominance of Hard HRM in the construction industry goes some way towards

explaining the current recruitment crisis. Student applications for built environ-

ment courses, including architecture, surveying, planning and civil engineering fell

by 21% between 1994 and 1997 (Gann and Salter, 1999). Construction companies

and professional firms find it increasingly difficult to attract the intelligent, creative

young people that the industry badly needs. Other industries consistently offer bet-

ter salaries, better job satisfaction, increased job security and more enlightened

approaches to HRM. Whilst it is true that senior industrialists and government

representatives increasingly endorse the rhetoric of soft HRM, there is little real

evidence of any significant shift in the industry’s default model of HRM. Regressive

attitudes to HRM are so embedded within the UK construction industry they will

not be easily changed. It is the dominant culture of “command and control” that

determines the agenda for change as advocated by industry leaders. The problems

of the construction industry are invariably blamed on impediments to machine effi-

ciency. Progressive improvement initiatives repeat familiar calls for “attitudinal and

cultural improvement” whilst advocating that others should become more efficient

at meeting the efficiency targets of the technocratic elite. Rarely is there any con-

sideration of the externalities that lie beyond the narrow domain of instrumental

rationality. Even supposedly enlightened practices such as partnering and TQM are

ultimately judged in accordance with their contribution to efficiency. Employees are

continually conceptualized as cogwheels in a remorseless machine. In the UK con-

struction industry, utilitarian instrumentalism reigns supreme. The primary source

of competitive advantage is invariably equated with cost efficiency. There is little

recognition of human resources as a source of competitive advantage. None of this

does anything to attract new talent into the construction industry, or to empower

the existing human resources.

4. Perpetuating the Downward Cycle

The rhetoric of improving efficiency by the elimination of waste is undeniably

attractive in the short term. However, the long-term effect will be to perpetuate

the construction industry’s downward cycle whilst reinforcing its reputation for

unrewarding careers. Long-term competitiveness and sustainability are too easily

sacrificed for the sake of short-term efficiency. Whilst this perennial short-termism

acts against the development of the industry as a whole, it continues to serve

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 151

the immediate interests of the industry’s technocratic elite. From a critical per-

spective, the last thing that current industry leaders need is a flood of “empow-

ered” employees teeming with innovative ideas. Far better to impose a regime of

management-by-stress whereby employees are constantly under pressure to meet

ever-increasing efficiency targets. Each successive financial cycle heralds a new drive

towards cost efficiency. Many construction companies seem to be in a perpetual state

of downsizing to satisfy the appetite of financial analysts. The increasingly short-

term focus imposed by the marketplace inevitably reinforces the trend towards

management-by-stress and regressive approaches to HRM. Such are the barriers to

innovation in the construction industry.

As a caveat to the above, it should be emphasized that there are important

exceptions. This is especially true for some of the UK’s design practices and engi-

neering consultancies. There are a few notable firms that compete very successfully

internationally and have invested heavily in knowledge-based services. The com-

petitive advantage of these firms is based on their employees and their capacity

for innovation. Such firms seek to recruit and retain highly capable people by pro-

viding them with rewarding and challenging careers. Central to the attraction of

such organizations is the extent of job variation and the associated opportunities

for continuous personal development. Strangely, the agenda for change within the

UK construction industry does not look to its own success stories as exemplars

of good practice. Instead, the industry is exhorted to follow the precedent of the

motor industry. This advise remains intact despite continuing concerns regarding

productivity in the UK motor industry. The recent Rover debacle is the latest in

a long line of well-published management disasters in an industry characterized by

poor industrial relations and lack of investment. The primary lesson to be extracted

from the UK motor industry is that the rhetoric of gurus such as Womack and

Jones (1996) should be treated with some considerable degree of caution. It is also

notable that the Competition Commission has recently found the UK motor indus-

try guilty of price fixing and anti-competitive behavior. It hardly qualifies therefore

as an exemplar of customer responsiveness. The rush towards lean construction

seems equally bizarre in the light of the motor industry’s questionable track record

in HRM.

5. The HRM Implications of Lean Production

Whilst strangely ignored by lean construction researchers, there is a considerable

body of research that equates the implementation of lean production to regressive

policies of human resource management (HRM) (e.g. Garrahan and Stewart 1992;

Hampson et al., 1994; IPD 1996; Rehder, 1994; Turnbull, 1988). The literature warn-

ing of the potentially adverse implications of lean methods on the quality of working

life is so extensive it is difficult to understand why it has been so systematically ig-

nored. The critical literature on the Japanese model of lean production dates from

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

152 S. D. Green

Kamata’s (1982) description of how Toyota’s single-minded drive for success in the

1970s was accompanied by significant personnel deprivation on the part of the work-

force. More recently, Sugimoto (1997) describes how the term karoshi is in common

use amongst Japanese workers to describe sudden deaths and severe stress result-

ing from overwork. Benders (1996), Gronning (1995) and Rehder (1994) all refer

to growing disillusionment in Japan amongst employees and increasing resistance

from trade unions.

Hutchinson et al. (1996) report a survey that asked Japanese parents if they

would advise their children to work in the automobile industry. Only 4.5% of re-

spondents replied yes (Nomura, 1992). The most frequently cited reasons were as

follows:

• pay too low for intense work (43%)

• high work intensity (41%)

• onerous shift system (40%)

• much work on holidays and overtime (36%)

• unfriendly personnel practices (33%).

Given the UK construction industry’s difficulties in attracting high quality per-

sonnel, it therefore seems strange to model the agenda for change on the Japanese

automobile industry. Criticisms are not limited to production plants in Japan,

but also extend to overseas transplants. Fucini and Fucini (1990) point to poor

safety standards, stress of work, loss of individual freedom and discriminatory em-

ployment practices at Mazda’s US production plant in Michigan. Garrahan and

Stewart (1992) and Turnbull (1988) provide similar criticisms of Nissan’s plant in

the UK, held up as an exemplar by the Egan Report (DETR, 1998). According

to Garrahan and Stewart (1992) Nissan’s supposed regime of flexibility, quality

and teamwork translates in practice to one of control, exploitation and surveil-

lance. Numerous other studies have demonstrated that the implementation of lean

methods leads to work intensification (Parker and Slaughter, 1998; Cappelli and

Rogovsky, 1994). On a similar theme, Berggren (1993) equates lean production

with “mean production”:

“. . . unlimited performance demands, the long working hours and re-

quirements to work overtime on short notice, the recurrent health and

safety complaints, the rigorous factory regime that constitutes a new

and very strict regime of subordinations”.

Howell and Ballard (1999) suggest that lean production techniques are them-

selves neutral. In an abstract sense, this is probably true. However, the implementa-

tion of lean construction in real contexts can never be neutral. Every organizational

change initiative inevitably disturbs the status quo. Whilst theories of production

can be developed in isolation of HRM considerations, they must be implemented in

the context of real organizations. Organizational change initiatives are inextricably

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 153

wrapped around an implicit HRM policy. Existing power structures are changed

with direct implications for individual job boundaries and the quality of work-

ing life. Frederick Taylor (1911) famously maintained that “scientific management”

was neutral whilst leaving others to worry about the dehumanizing side effects of

treating people as mindless cogwheels in a remorseless machine. The relationship of

lean thinking to Taylorism is well described by Dohse et al. (1985):

“Toyotism is . . . not an alternative to Taylorism but rather a solution

to its classic problem of the resistance of the workers to placing their

knowledge of production in the service of rationalisation.”

Notions of empowerment and participation are therefore carefully controlled.

Employees are only “empowered” to implement imposed targets more efficiently.

They are not empowered to participate in the process by which targets are set or

in the allocation of the proceeds of any resultant efficiency gains.

Whilst some of the above sources are undoubtedly somewhat one sided, this is

equally true for the more evangelical advocates of lean methods such as Womack and

Jones (1996) and the Egan Report (DETR, 1998). The most worrying thing is that

the debate has not even started. It is of course conceivable that lean construction

could be implemented in accordance with soft HRM. However, given the dominant

culture of the UK construction industry, this is always likely to be the exception

rather than the general case. What is currently so noticeably absent is any empirical

research data on how lean construction is implemented. Strangely, there seems to be

little interest in research of this nature. International researchers in lean construction

seem content to develop theories of production entirely in the abstract, leaving

others to worry about the dehumanizing side effects.

6. The Instrumental Rationality of Best Practice

The extensive critical literature that equates lean methods to regressive HRM prac-

tices has not prevented lean construction from becoming an established component

of construction best practice (CBPP, 1998). It would seem that lean construction

has been accepted as an essential part of best practice on the recommendation of

the Egan Report (DETR, 1998) in the absence of any supporting evidence. There

is certainly an alarming absence of convincing case studies. Such case studies as do

exist are largely anecdotal. Lean construction is seemingly a good idea primarily be-

cause Sir John Egan and the technocratic elite say it is a good idea. The task of the

research community is apparently limited to supporting the prejudices of current

industry leaders and thereby maintaining the status quo. Of course, the emphasis of

lean thinking on eliminating waste and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb

into the best practice agenda because it confirms with the existing dominant way

of thinking. Best practice rarely strays from the narrow domain of instrumental

rationality in that it is invariably concerned only with the most efficient means of

achieving a given end. Economic externalities such as traffic congestion, pollution

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

154 S. D. Green

and the human cost of regressive management regimes consistently fall outside the

adopted frame of reference. The limitation of “best practice” to issues of instru-

mental rationality is well illustrated by a recent flyer published by the Construction

Best Practice Programme (CBPP):

“Best Practice = Better Profits

• Find out more about the relationship between Best Practice and improving profit

levels.

• Learn how to increase efficiency, reduce costs and improve competitiveness.

• Hear, first hand, from organizations that have benefited from implementing Best

Practice.

• Discover the bottom line benefits from putting the theory into practice.”

The above illustrates the way in which current conceptualizations of best prac-

tice are invariably limited to narrow issues of instrumental rationality. Note also that

the CBPP is funded by the DETR to the tune of $6M over three years (DETR,

1999). Why the UK tax payer is being asked to help make the corporate sector more

efficient remains unclear. The abandonment of the principles of the free marketplace

seems strangely at odds with the frequently espoused doctrine of neoliberalism. The

reality is that free-market principles seldom apply to the large organizations that

seek to influence industrial policy. The status of BAA as a privatized quasi-monopoly

did not prevent Sir John Egan from preaching best practice to the construction

industry. The trend towards corporatism is readily illustrated by the way large or-

ganizations seek increased control through partnering and integrated supply-chains.

Come back Adam Smith, all is forgiven.

The above analysis provides a different starting point from which to understand

“best practice”. There is a subtle process at work across the numerous commit-

tees that shape the best practice agenda. It is not necessary to believe that such

committees deliberately act to further their own vested interests; merely that they

take no action that goes against their interests. The end result is the same. It then

becomes understandable why definitions of performance improvement rarely stray

beyond the domain of instrumental rationality. “Best practice” is judged by the

extent to which it serves the interests of the technocratic elite. Whilst it is true that

the CBPP flags the importance of “developing people”, the caveat is quickly added

that the effectiveness of training should be measured by its contribution to business

performance. In other words, training is only worthwhile if it contributes to com-

pany profits. Metaphors such as “teamwork” and “customer-responsiveness” mask

the reality that employees are required to act as mindless cogwheels in a remorse-

less machine. There is little pretence that any efficiency gains will be shared equally

amongst the diversity of stakeholders in the construction industry. Targets abound

for reducing the cost of construction and enhancing profitability. Lean construction

thereby becomes the latest manifestation of a long established trend. The rhetoric

is heavy in the machine metaphor whilst exhorting others to be more efficient. It

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 155

is taken for granted that people are compliant, predicable and willing to be pro-

grammed in accordance with the requirements of a rationally designed system. The

advise on implementing lean construction offered by Howell and Ballard (1998) ex-

emplifies these assumptions. The alleged “new way” of managing construction would

seem depressingly familiar to the subordinates of Frederick Taylor (1911). Nothing

really changes.

Many will undoubtedly feel uncomfortable with the suggestion that the financial

rewards from productivity initiatives are not shared equally with the workforce.

Unfortunately, the available evidence would seem to support the above diagnosis.

To consider the US statistics, during the 1990s executive pay jumped 535% (before

adjusting for inflation). The growth in worker pay during the same period was 32%,

which barely outpaced inflation at 27.5% (Anderson et al., 2000). The figures for the

UK display a similar rapid increase in wage inequality since 1978 (Machin, 1996).

The available statistics are therefore in direct conflict with the assumption that the

rewards of industrial innovation are shared equally. If such issues are not addressed

explicitly, it would seem inevitable that any increased profits realized from lean

construction will be distributed in accordance with the established norm.

7. Research on the Rational High Ground

The preceding discussion provides a very different perspective on the mechanisms

that have generated the current interest in lean construction. The lean construction

literature consistently reduces organizational complexities to a mechanistic quest

for efficiency. The intellectual origins are shared with the broader disciplines of

production engineering, operational research and systems engineering. All of these

are worthy areas of academic endeavor, but none are ever neutral in their imple-

mentation. Rarely have lean construction researchers descended from the rational

high ground into the swampy lowland of human affairs where messy and confusing

problems defy technical solution (Schon, 1987). The contribution of Koskela (2000)

represents a significant intellectual achievement, but rarely does he descend from

the level of high theoretical abstraction. Further important contributions have been

made by Howell and Ballard of the Lean Construction Institute (LCI) (e.g. Ballard

and Howell, 1997) and Tommelein (e.g. Tommelein, 1998). These US-based con-

tributors draw heavily on the tradition of production engineering and are primarily

concerned with the “physics of production in the service of higher performance”

(Howell and Ballard, 1999). The domain of enquiry is invariably limited to instru-

mental rationality and as such provides no challenge to the industry’s dominant

ideology of utilitarian instrumentalism. Such research therefore passes the basic

test of “best practice”; others must become more efficient in serving the interests

of the industry’s technocratic elite. Tommelein has also done much useful work in

supply-chain mapping and simulation, although consideration of the HRM impli-

cations of lean construction is once again notable by its absence. The dominant

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

156 S. D. Green

theme of all these sources is the quest for optimization with associated assumptions

of scientism and the treatment of people as passive objects. The current research

agenda notably ignores the meaning and experience of lean construction for the em-

ployees. The possibility of employee intransigence born from the failure of previous

top-down Taylorist management initiatives is not recognized. From the perspective

of the workforce, the rhetoric of “mapping value”, “optimizing flow” and “endeav-

oring for perfection” must seem depressingly familiar. Whilst not addressing HRM

issues directly, the contribution of Seymour (1999) to the development of a socio-

logical perspective on lean construction nevertheless warrants mention as a notable

exception to the general trend.

The tendency of international researchers to ignore the HRM implications of lean

construction is also reflected amongst many that have advocated lean methods in

the UK (DETR, 1998; Flanagan et al., 1998; Saad and Jones, 1998). When issues of

HRM are raised they tend to be at the level of the team, rather than being treated as

issues of strategic significance. This tendency is notable within the people manage-

ment research agenda of the Agile Construction Initiative (ACI) at the University of

Bath (Hall, 1998). As with other generic notions of best practice, effective teamwork

is seemingly judged by the extent to which it meets the needs of operational effi-

ciency. Convincing empirical research from the automotive sector suggests that lean

teamwork tends to occur within highly standardized and routinized work regimes

(Delbridge et al., 2000). As such, it offers no advance in terms of worker autonomy.

The occasional lip-service given to teamwork within the lean construction literature

does little to dispel the suspicion that the lean model of “teamworking” ultimately

equates with compliance and conformity.

8. Counter-criticisms

Given the limited tradition of critical work within the domain of construction man-

agement, it is necessary to acknowledge some of the counter-criticisms that are

likely to be directed at the argument developed in this paper. The review that fol-

lows summarizes the most common counter-criticisms directed at critical research.

It is of course important that all research is subject to criticism. It is especially

important that critical researchers are self-critical. Unfortunately, the debate re-

garding the validity of critical research within construction management often never

progresses beyond simple rejection. This is to the detriment of construction man-

agement research internationally. Some of the counter-criticisms leveled at critical

work are fatuous and can be dealt with easily. Others are more philosophical and

can never be entirely resolved. Nevertheless, making such counter-criticisms explicit

serves to explain some of the assumptions of critical research and to clarify its

contribution to knowledge. It also serves to highlight some of the schisms and con-

ceptual chasms that fragment the slippery domain of Critical Management Studies

(CMS).

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 157

8.1. Contribution to knowledge

Some observers find critical research to be overly “negative”. The argument is that

research should seek to move the industry forward, rather than deconstruct the

contributions of others. Hence critical work is not recognized as a valid contribution

to knowledge. Such a view reflects an instrumental and uni-dimensional view of

knowledge. Within the physical sciences, it is reasonable to assume that knowledge

can be accumulated into a single coherent structure (notwithstanding the occasional

Kuhnian paradigm shift). This is not the case for the social sciences where irresolv-

able schisms abound (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Of course, within the physical

sciences there is an ultimate arbiter in nature. In contrast, within management

studies the subject of study is undeniably socially constructed. Knowledge within

the social sciences often comprises an understanding of different insights provided

from different theoretical perspectives. To develop an appreciation that such in-

sights are not necessarily reconcilable is part of being knowledgeable. The argument

is well-summarized by Alvesson and Deetz (2000):

“Research . . . may aid human development by highlighting the precar-

ious and debatable nature of knowledge rather than unidimensional

and accumulative ‘truths’.”

Exposure of false gurus and unfounded propaganda is seen to be an important

role of the academic. Within the construction management academic community,

researchers are frequently too accepting of the policy prescriptions advocated by

governments and industry leaders. In the absence of critical orientation in research,

academics are consigned merely to reproduce established conventions that main-

tain the status quo. Critical research therefore seeks to challenge the way in which

management studies subordinate knowledge to efficiency of production (Fournier

and Grey, 2000). Whilst it is true that management research is generally normative,

this is by no means pre-determined. Universities have a broader responsibility to

focus on the externalities that lie beyond the instrumental rationality of “improving

efficiency”.

8.2. One-sided view

Critical research is often criticised for being one-sided. This paper would be rejected

by many on the basis that it addresses only the potential negative aspects of lean

construction. Strangely, such commentators feel quite comfortable that 95% of the

lean construction literature addresses only the potential positive aspects. Different

standards seemingly apply to critical research. Given the huge imbalance of the

existing literature, the development of a critical perspective is extremely important

in developing a better overall balance.

Leaving aside the issue of double standards, the point of primary importance

is that researchers should be self-conscious of the assumptions of their adopted

position. Every research methodology possesses limitations and assumptions. This

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

158 S. D. Green

applies to critical research to no less an extent than to other research paradigms.

Different research methodologies will accentuate different aspects of reality. Critical

research is undoubtedly one-sided, but it is at least self-consciously one-sided. This is

more than can be said for the popularist rhetoric of lean construction. Philosophical

and methodological reflexivity is central to the critical project (Fournier and Grey,

2000). It is not an issue of drawing battle lines between positivistic studies and

critical work. The point is that the positivism of the mainstream is rarely made

explicit and defended. It is further notable that interpretive researchers such as

Seymour (1999) tend to justify the need for ethnographic research vis-a-vis the

limitations of positivist research. Such justifications invariably neglect criticisms

directed at ethnographic research from critical perspectives.

Whilst it is valid and important to criticise the methodology of critical research,

it must also be recognized that there are methodological limitations associated with

all research paradigms. Critical researchers are probably more careful than most

in emphasizing their adopted position. The author considers it important that no

claims are made to possess a monopoly on the truth. The underlying belief is that

reality is multi-perspective in nature and that researchers must seek insights from

different theoretical perspectives. A growth in critical research will serve to provide a

better overall balance within the construction management community. At present,

the community is far too strongly orientated to the needs of management. This

orientation militates against a balanced research agenda. Researchers should have

at least some concern for the victims of lean construction rather than limiting

the domain of interest to “increasing efficiency”. There is an important distinction

between research of management and research for management.

8.3. There is no alternative

Some commentators equate any attempt to criticize lean construction with a general

critique of the “capitalist model of production”. To criticize lean methods is there-

fore a pointless exercise in the face of an irresistible inevitability. This point of

view is often encapsulated in the expression “there is no alternative” (TINA). Such

counter-criticisms would seem to depend upon a homogeneous view of the “capi-

talist model” and a rather depressing fatalism regarding our assumed inability to

change it. The author’s contention is that capitalism comes in a myriad of forms and

can be implemented in a myriad of different ways. For example, there is a significant

difference between the laissez-faire capitalism of the “Washington Consensus” and

the Keynesian model of Bretton Woods. Other examples include the mercantalist

model of the 19th century and the distinctive variants currently operated in Russia,

Japan and Germany. Whilst it is true that the so-called Washington Consensus is

becoming increasingly dominant, such structures are by no means pre-determined

or inevitable. All models of capitalism are socially constructed and therefore sub-

ject to re-negotiation. Even during the high point of laissez-faire capitalism in 19th

century Britain, progressive thinkers such as Joseph Rowntree at York and Robert

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 159

Owen at New Lanark operated exemplary factory communities. Production systems

continue to lie at different points along the HRM continuum. The argument is that

unless the HRM implications of the lean model are made explicit, it will inevitably

be implemented in accordance with the construction industry’s default recipe. In

the long term, this will not only be to the detriment of employees, but will also

impede the industry’s economic performance.

8.4. Marxism vs. postmodernism

Directly associated with the preceding “TINA” argument is a tendency to stifle

meaningful debate by labeling all criticism as Marxist. In the author’s experi-

ence, this response tends to come from academics rather than industrialists. This

is strange given that academics would normally be expected to be more supportive

of the need for criticism. In the context of methodology, criticism is an essential

activity. It is not necessary to be a disciple of Popper to recognize the role of cri-

tique in the progression of knowledge. To dismiss all criticism as “Marxist” is to

avoid debate and thereby limit the progression of knowledge. Whilst the Frank-

furt School of the 1930s may have had strong Marxist leanings, this is not true of

modern critical writers who draw from a plurality of intellectual traditions. Many

critical researchers rely on postmodernist notions of organization, emphasizing the

constructed nature of reality through language. For many, Foucault is a much more

powerful underlying influence than Marx. A Foucaudian approach would seek to sen-

sitize people to the pervasive nature of power-based discourse. This is in contrast

to the emphasis on direct coercion and the structural differences between capital

and labor found in classical Marxism. It cannot be denied that there is a signifi-

cant schism within CMS between these two points of view. Nevertheless, the debate

in recent years has moved beyond these two polarities (Fournier and Grey, 2000).

Whilst the emergence of any unitary position is likely to remain illusive, the ongo-

ing debate enhances methodological reflexivity whilst addressing important ethical

issues associated with critical work. Ultimately, individuals tend to adopt positions

with which they feel comfortable. The present author certainly feels uncomfortable

with structural Marxism and its underlying assumptions of rational positivism. He

would therefore tend to align himself with the relativist tradition of postmodernism,

whilst retaining on awareness of the dangers of moral nihilism. It must be recog-

nized that critical research in construction management will never provide an easy

option. But a continued blind allegiance to empiricism is not a viable option.

8.5. Empirical evidence

The above discussion raises a further common counter-criticism that is often di-

rected at critical research. There are some who would seek to reject the arguments

presented in this paper on the basis that they are not supported by empirical evi-

dence. Within the context of lean construction, it is necessary to point out that there

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

160 S. D. Green

is again an implied double standard. If the criterion of empirical evidence were ap-

plied to the lean construction literature as a whole many of the seminal contributions

would never have been published. It should be noted that lean construction is in

itself a theoretical construct. Koskela (2000) has championed the cause of theorizing

in respect of production. His work in the development of theory is widely recognized

to be of central importance amongst lean construction researchers (e.g. Seymour,

1999). Strangely, the same degree of importance is not attached to the cause of

theorizing in respect of the HRM implications of lean construction. Some theories

are seemingly more acceptable than others.

Notwithstanding the above, it must be conceded that critical researchers are

faced with significant problems in collecting empirical evidence that is undistorted

by the guiding theoretical framework. Nevertheless, such difficulties are by no means

unique to critical research. Positivist and interpretive research are both prone to

systematic distortion through unconscious selectivity. For example, ethnographic

researchers are often faced with insurmountable challenges in collating the huge

richness of available empirical material without imposing a filtering system (Alves-

son and Deetz, 2000). It is therefore inevitable that the pre-existing “mental models”

of researchers will influence the reported findings. What researchers give attention

to is shaped by what they look for. From this perspective, theorizing and empirical

research are essential parts of the same project.

In evaluating the contribution of critical research, it is important to remem-

ber that all research methodologies possess limitations and impose distortions. It is

therefore important that insights are gained from different theoretical perspectives.

In social science, different theories represent different ways of seeing. Rather than

arguing that one research methodology is “better” than another, it is perhaps more

useful to understand different theories as different lenses that accentuate different

aspects of reality. The choice of theory therefore depends upon what the researcher

wants to pay attention to. The construction management community has to date

neglected critical theory and therefore underplayed the importance of vested in-

terests and shaping ideologies. It is not however advocated that everybody should

suddenly adopt critical theory. The argument in favor of critical research should be

coupled with an overriding commitment to methodological pluralism.

Returning to the theme of empirical evidence, it is notable that the majority of

the arguments presented in this paper concern the selectivity of the literature. It

is a matter of fact that the conventional discourse on lean construction ignores the

extensive critical literature on lean methods. The argument regarding the operation

of vested interests and the underlying influence of managerial ideology is presented

as one possible explanation of why the existing literature is so highly selective.

Others are welcome to provide alternative explanations, but the facts of the case

cannot be ignored. Given the significant amount of public funding that supports the

propagation of best practice, it is pertinent to ask where the onus of proof should

lie. To criticize critical research for “relying too much on rhetoric and not enough on

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 161

evidence” is to duplicate exactly the argument directed at the best practice literature

on lean construction. Nevertheless, such reminders of the dangers of engaging solely

in rhetorical argument are important. What is ultimately required is an appropriate

balance between critical orientation and a sensitive interest in empirical research.

Too much of the former leads to elitism and too much of the latter limits researchers

to the local and the trivial (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000).

8.6. Elitism

Perhaps the most difficult counter-criticism to deal with is the accusation that

critical research is elitist. Some feel uncomfortable with the right of researchers to

seek to influence reality by the propagation of a critical argument. The trouble with

this line of argument is that it could equally be applied to those that propagate the

conventional discourse on lean construction. It is pertinent to repeat that critical

research is at least self-conscious and open in its one-sidedness. Nevertheless, there is

undeniably a central contradiction to a critical position that assumes weakness in the

reasoning powers of the very people who it hopes to empower. Critical approaches

also tend too often to see dominant interest groups as coherent entities that act

intentionally.

The danger of conceptualising dominant interest groups as singular entities

should be a constant concern to critical researchers. If such groups are crystalized too

rigidly then critical thinking may indeed regress to “old-fashioned” structural Marx-

ism. Elite groups have always been much more open to new arrivals than Marxists

like to admit. It is also important to recognize that elite groups may have inter-

nalized ideologies that act against their own interests (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000).

For example, the continued propagation of regressive HRM approaches in the con-

struction industry will ultimately reduce sustainability and long-term profitability.

In this way, dominant interest groups may also derive benefit from critical research.

The criticism of elitism is perhaps best countered by an active policy of engaging

with practicing managers whilst avoiding directive statements of what they should

do. It is clearly also important that critical researchers remain self-conscious of

their adopted theoretical position and the associated assumptions. It is especially

important to make clear that no monopoly is claimed on the truth and to recognize

the need for empirical research coupled with methodological pluralism. The author

makes a point of ending critical seminars with the caveat: “But whatever you do,

don’t believe what I tell you”. The emphasis should always be placed on empowering

members of the audience to make up their own minds. This is in direct contrast to

those who advocate prescriptive models of lean construction whilst seeking to stifle

critical debate.

9. Conclusion

There is significant evidence to suggest that the UK construction industry pos-

sesses an institutionalized regressive culture of HRM, despite notable exceptions.

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

162 S. D. Green

This acts as a powerful disincentive to the young, intelligent and creative people

that the industry so badly needs. Lean construction has been accepted as an es-

sential element of best practice despite widespread concerns regarding the HRM

implications of lean methods. The emphasis of lean thinking on eliminating waste

and improving efficiency makes it easy to absorb into the best practice agenda

because it conforms to the dominant way of thinking. New ideas are apparently

only accepted as best practice if they reflect the construction industry’s ingrained

culture of hard HRM. There is seemingly no demand for ideas that challenge the

existing worldviews of industry leaders. The champions of best practice are seem-

ingly programmed to consider only the narrow domain of instrumental rationality.

Even supposedly enlightened practices such as teamworking, partnering and total

quality management are ultimately judged in terms of their contribution to cost

efficiency. The dominant “industry recipe” of HRM will inevitably shape the way

that lean methods are implemented. Unless this issue is tackled explicitly, the im-

plementation of lean construction will continue to reinforce the industry’s dominant

culture of “command and control”. The ultimate victim will be the sustainability of

the construction industry and its long-term capacity to serve the needs of the UK

economy and society.

Notwithstanding the above, it is recognized that there are many within the

construction management research community that feel uncomfortable with the

validity of critical contributions. Some of the common counter-criticisms offered by

the advocates of lean construction have been acknowledged and the contribution

to knowledge has been defended. There is a tendency to suppress critical work on

the basis that it lacks empirical evidence and is one-sided in its argument. The fact

that these standards do not seemingly apply to the prescriptive literature on lean

construction reinforces the contention that management research is subject to an

ideological filtering system. Whilst this filtering system is undoubtedly subconscious,

it is nevertheless powerful.

It is valid and important to criticize the methodology of critical research. How-

ever, it must also be recognized that there are methodological limitations associated

with all research paradigms. The task of gathering empirical evidence undistorted by

ideological frameworks is extremely problematic. To make explicit the assumptions

associated with different methodologies is of central importance to “good research”.

An understanding of the assumptions and limitations of critical research is therefore

essential in the greater cause of methodological reflexivity. Nevertheless, it must also

be recognized that there are a number of theoretical schisms within critical man-

agement studies that are not easily papered over. Significant conflicts exist between

structural Marxists and critical postmodernists. There is a further stark line of ten-

sion between those that advocate engagement with practising managers and those

that see the discipline of management as a lost cause beyond redemption. The per-

sonal orientation of the author favours the postmodernist theme coupled with a

policy of active engagement. Such a position is by no means beyond criticism. As a

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 163

final comment, it is useful to cite Burrell (2001), who has likened critical work to

an open wound — “long may it fester”.

10. Acknowledgments

An earlier version of the first part of this paper was presented at the 2000 Con-

ference of the International Group for Lean Construction held in Brighton, UK.

The second part addresses some of the counter-criticisms kindly offered by the con-

ference participants. Some of these criticisms were repeated and reinforced by the

anonymous referees in response to the initial draft submitted to this journal. This

final version is much improved as a result of their comments.

References

Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. (2000), Doing Critical Management Research, Sage, London.Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction,

Sage, London.Anderson, S., Cavanagh, J., Collins, C, Hartman, C. and Yeskel, F. (2000), Executive Excess 2000,

Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, USA.Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1997), Shielding production: An essential step in production control,

ASCE Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 11–17.Benders, J. (1996), Leaving lean? Recent changes in the production orientation of some Japanese

car plants, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 17(1), 9–38.Berggren, C. (1993) Lean production — The end of history?, Work, Employment and Society, 7(2)

June, 163–188.Brewster, C. and Hegewisch, A. (1994), Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Man-

agement: The PricewaterhouseCoopers/Cranfield Survey, Routledge, London.Burrell, G. (2001) Ephemera: Critical dialogues on organization, Ephemera, 1(1), 11–29.Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heine-

mann, London.Cappelli, P. and Rogovsky, N. (1994), New work systems and skill requirements, International

Labour Review, 133(2), 205–220.CBPP (1998), Lean Construction, Construction Best Practice Programme, Garston.Coffey, M. and Langford, D. (1998), The propensity for employee participation by electrical and

mechanical trades in the construction industry, Construction Management and Economics, 16,543–552.

Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999), Britain at Work, Routledge, London.Dainty, A. R. J., Bagilhole, B. M. and Neale, R. H. (2000), A grounded theory of women’s ca-

reer under-achievement in large UK construction companies, Construction Management andEconomics, 18, 239–250.

Delbridge, R., Lowe, J. and Oliver, N. (2000), Worker automony in lean teams: Evidence from theworld automotive components industry, in S. Proctor and F. Mueller, editors, Teamworking,MacMillan, Basingstoke, 125–142.

DETR (1998), Rethinking Construction, Dept. of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,London.

DETR (1999), Construction Research & Innovation Programme, Annual Report 1998/99, Dept. ofthe Environment, Transport and the Regions, London.

Dohse, K., Jurgens, U. and Malsch, T. (1985), From Fordism to Toyotism? The social organizationof the labour process in the Japanese automobile industry, Politics and Society, 14(2), 115–46.

Druker, J., White, G., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996), Between hard and soft HRM: Humanresource management in the construction industry, Construction Management and Economics,14, 405–416.

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

164 S. D. Green

Flanagan, R., Marsh, L. and Ingram, I. (1998), Bridge to the Future: Profitable Construction forTomorrow’s Industry and Its Customers, Thomas Telford, London.

Fournier, V. and Grey, C. (2000), At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for criticalmanagement studies, Human Relations, 53, 7–32.

Fucini, J. and Fucini, S. (1990), Working for the Japanese, The Free Press, New York.Gann, D. and Salter, A. (1999), Interdisciplinary Skills for Built Environment Professionals: A

Scoping Study, Ove Arup Foundation.Garrahan, P. and Stewart, P. (1992), The Nissan Enigma: Flexibility at Work in a Local Economy,

Mansell, London.Gronning, T (1995), Recent developments at Toyota Motor Co.: The emergence of neo-Toyotaism,

in A. Sanning, editor, Enriching Production — Perspectives of Volvo’s Uddevalla Plant as anAlternative to Lean Production, Avebury, Aldershot, 405–425.

Guest, D. (1987), Human resource management and industrial relations, Journal of ManagementStudies, 24(5), 503–521.

Hall, M. (1998), A Proposal for Advancing the People Management Research Agenda of the ACI,Agile Report, University of Bath.

Hampson, I., Ewer, P. and Smith, M. (1994), Post-Fordism and workplace change: Towards a criticalresearch agenda, Journal of Industrial Relations, June, 231–257.

Held, D. (1980), Introduction to Critical Theory, Hutchinson, London.Hillebrandt, P. and Cannon, J. (1990), The Modern Construction Firm, Macmillian, London.Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1998), Implementing lean construction: Understanding and action,

Proceeding 6th Annual Conference International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja, Brazil.Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1999), Bringing light to the dark side of lean construction: A response

to Stuart Green, Proceeding 7th Annual Conference International Group for Lean Construction,I. D. Tommelein, editor, University of California, Berkeley, 33–37.

Hutchinson, S., Kinnie, N and Purcell, J. (1996), Report by the University of Bath, in The PeopleManagement Implications of Leaner Ways of Working, Issues in People Management, No. 15,Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

IPD (1996), The People Management Implications of Leaner Ways of Working, Issues in PeopleManagement, No. 15, Institute of Personnel and Development, London.

Kamata, S. (1982), Japan in the Passing Lane: An Insider’s Account of Life in a Japanese AutoFactory, Pantheon Books, New York.

Koskela, L. (2000), An Exploration Towards a Production Theory and Its Application to Construc-tion, VTT Publications No. 408, Technical Research Centre of Finland.

Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, MacMillan, London.Machin, S. (1996), Wage inequality in the UK, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 12(1), 47–64.McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York.Nomura, M. (1992), Farewell to “Toyotism”? Recent Trend of a Japanese Automobile Company,

Report No. 1992-1, Dept. of Economics, Okayama University, Okayama.Parker, M. and Slaughter, J. (1988), Management by stress, Technology Review, October, 37–44.Rehder, R. R. (1994), Saturn, Uddevalla and the Japanese lean system: Paradoxical prototypes for

the twenty-first century, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 5(1), 1–31.Saad, M. and Jones, M. (1998), Unlocking Specialist Potential, Reading Construction Forum.Schon, D. A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching

and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Seymour, D. (1999), Lean construction: Towards an agenda for research into systems and organ-

isation, Proceeding of the 7th Conference International Group for Lean Construction, I. D.Tommelein, editor, University of California, Berkeley, 381–397.

Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford.Sugimoto, Y. (1997), An Introduction to Japanese Society, Cambridge University Press.Taylor, F. W. (1911), Principles of Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York.Tommelein, I. D. (1998), Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: Simulation of lean

construction technique, ASCE Construction Engineering and Management, 124(4), 279–288.

January 23, 2002 17:30 WSPC/177-JCR 00011

Human Resource Management Implications of Lean Construction 165

Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997), Soft and hard modelsof human resource management: A reappraisal, Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 53–73.

Turnbull, P. (1988), The limits to Japanization — Just-in-time, labour relations and the UKautomotive industry, New Technology, Work and Employment, 3(1), 7–20.

Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, RawsonAssociates, New York.

Womack, J. P. and Jones, D. T. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York.

Copyright of Journal of Construction Research is the property of World Scientific Publishing Company and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.