“The Impact of Human Resource and Operational Management Practices on Company Productivity: A Longitudinal Study”
Personnel Psychology
Autumn 2008, pp. 467-501
(Also available from the Business Source
Complete\EBSCOHost database and the ABI/INFORM [ProQuest] database or at
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/management/11593951-1.html)
The authors of this article designed a longitudinal study that examined the effects on productivity of human resource-based practices (empowerment, extensive training, and teamwork) and operations initiatives (total quality management, just-in-time, advanced manufacturing technology, and supply-chain partnering). All of these practices are part of a fully-developed lean manufacturing effort. Data from 308 British companies was included, with measures spanning 22 years. Three surveys were administered from1996 to 2003, in order to obtain data on the use of the seven management practices. Participants were asked if each practice was in use across the organization and, if so, when it had been introduced. The measure of company productivity was derived using a formula to measure value-added from an available UK database. The study was designed to:
- Determine the performance effect of introducing each of the human resource-based or operations practices separately
- Establish whether the synergies among the practices that are predicted by theory are supported by data
- In the cases where effects are established, examine how long before they emerge and how long they persist
The survey results showed that there was a high rate of adoption of the practices during the 1996-2003 time period.
- Twenty percent of the companies adopted all seven practices during the time period
- 38% adopted 4 to 6 practices
- 30% adopted 1 to 3 practices
- Only 12% had not implemented any of the practices
For the individual practices:
- 58% adopted empowerment
- 55% adopted extensive training
- 53% adopted teamwork
- 63% adopted total quality management
- 53% adopted just-in-time
- 55% adopted advanced manufacturing technology
- 65% adopted supply-chain partnering
The results of the effects of the seven management practices on productivity were somewhat surprising: Only empowerment and extensive training were found to have statistically significant effects on company productivity. None of the operational practices had a significant effect on company productivity. However, most combinations of any two practices (including the operational practices) additionally increased the effect on company productivity. The authors offer several possible hypotheses for the results regarding the operational practices:
- The operational practices may be so common that just trying to implement them in whatever manner does not provide much competitive advantage
- The operational management practices are more complex than the human resource practices and the survey description might not have measured them well
- The quality of the implementation of the operational practices was not assessed in the survey, and poorly-implemented practices may not have a positive effect on company productivity
Given that the combination of human resource practices with operational practices had positive effects in their study, the authors conclude that their results support “the lean production assumption that the effectiveness of operational practices depends on human resource ones.”
Back to top of page
“Ready Set Change: Reducing Resistance to Six Sigma Projects”
Industrial Engineer
October 2008, pp. 35-39
(Also available from the Business Source
Complete\EBSCOHost database and the ABI/INFORM [ProQuest] database)
The author of this article summarizes his views on the importance of communication before, during, and after Six Sigma work in order to reduce resistance to change throughout. Four main communicative parts are identified:
- Provide Stakeholders (process owners, workers, managers, executives, suppliers, etc.) with a full and clear understanding of the process, the intent of the project and the potential outcome—“Many people that resist change may lack the basic understanding of the importance and intent of a Six Sigma project”
- Ease the fear of change—“It can include fear of losing a job as a result of improved process performance, fear of being moved to another area or even fear of receiving a reduction in compensation”
- Create, maintain and promote an effective and easy-to-use system for communication such as daily/weekly reports, breakthrough meetings or information boards—These systems may be relatively simple or elaborate, as needed
- Promote an environment where all stakeholders can share their ideas and receive feedback throughout the project life cycle—“the project manager, managers and team members must consistently promote an open team environment”
When some resistance does inevitably occur, the author recommends the following steps:
- Determine to what extent resistance is present within the project team and/or organization
- Determine if the communication session needs to be done one-on-one or in a group with those showing resistance
- Allow the team member or manager to express their concerns so that you have a solid background on the resistance problem at hand
- Use your knowledge of Six Sigma tools and strategies, the need for the project and the potential success of the project to structure a solution to the other party’s concerns
- Reinforce the opportunity for success, quality awareness and learning as a result of starting and completing a project
- Hold an open dialogue until both parties understand the goals of the project and how important team commitment is to the overall success of the Six Sigma project
- Allow everyone the opportunity to promote the use of Six Sigma to reduce process variation and defects through effective process management
Back to top of page
“Work Stress Management Interventions: What Works Best?”
Academy of Management Perspectives
Aug. 2008, pp. 111-112
(Also available from the Business Source
Complete\EBSCOHost database)
This “Research Brief” summarizes the results of recent research by Katherine Richardson and Hannah Rothstein, which compared the results of 36 experimental studies of stress management interventions and synthesized the results.
The stress management interventions from the studies fell into the following subcategories:
- Cognitive-behavioral approaches—These approaches teach individuals to think differently about their challenging situations
- Relaxation approaches—These approaches teach people to calm their physical responses to stress
- Organizational approaches—These approaches focus on workplace changes to create a less stressful work environment
- “Alternative” approaches—These were approaches such as journaling that did not fit into the previous three categories
- Multimodal approaches—This category included whenever an organization used two or more of the above approaches
All five categories of approaches were found to be effective at reducing workplace stress. However, the cognitive-behavioral approaches had the best results. Cognitive-behavioral approaches encourage people to actively change how they think and behave in stressful situations, and so this approach is most able to be generalized to various stressful situations.
Back to top of page
“IW 2008 Best Plants Finalists Named”
Industry Week
Oct 2008, p. 16
(Also available from the Business Source
Complete\EBSCOHost database and the ABI/INFORM [ProQuest] database)
Industry Week has named the 20 finalists for the 2008 “Best Plants” awards that will be announced in January:
- Baldor Electric Co. (Weaverville, NC)
- Batesville Casket Co., Panola Plant (Batesville, MS)
- Baxter Mexico S. a. de C. V. (Jiutepec, Morelos, Mexico)
- Bunge Canada (Oakville, Ontario, Canada)
- Cordis LLC (San German, Puerto Rico)
- Day-Brite/Capri/Omega Lighting (Tupelo, MS)
- DST Output East, LLC (South Windsor, CT)
- E-Z-Go, a division of Textron (Augusta, GA)
- General Cable—Manchester Plant (Manchester, NH)
- Global Products Co. (Chihuahua, Chih., Mexico)
- Greatbatch Inc. (Alden, NY)
- Lockheed Martin MS2 Tactical Systems—Clearwater Operations (Oldsmar, FL)
- Meridian Automotive Systems—Ionia Operations (Ionia, MI)
- Nordson Corp.—Dawsonville Manufacturing Facility (Dawsonville, GA)
- Nordson Corp.—Swainsboro Assembly Plant (Swainsboro, GA)
- Philips Luminaries North America, Sparta Operations (Sparta, TN)
- Rea Magnet Wire Co. (Las Cruces, NM)
- Sulzer Process Pumps (U.S.) Inc. (Easley, SC)
- Thermo Fisher Scientific (Marietta, OH)
- UT Electric Controls (Huntington, IN)
Back to top of page
“Tier 1's Say Toyota is Tops in Supplier Relations”
Industry Week
Oct. 2008, pp. 26-27
(Also available from the Business Source
Complete\EBSCOHost database and the ABI/INFORM [ProQuest] database)
Research firm Planning Perspectives’ eighth annual Working Relations Study asks suppliers to rate working relations with automobile manufacturers. This year, 284 Tier 1 suppliers (54% of all suppliers) participated in the survey, and the rankings shifted dramatically compared to last year. Chrysler, Nissan and Toyota dropped to their lowest levels in five years, though Toyota retained a very small lead over Honda for the top spot. Ford has moved up to be the most-preferred domestic automaker for supplier relations. General Motors was ranked the least-preferred. Chrysler was ranked number 1 by suppliers 15 years ago, but it is now in last place behind General Motors.
Back to top of page
Yes, People Too
It’s not exactly a secret that people are the most important ingredient in any change or improvement effort. But we continue to focus on the toolset and we continue to be disappointed when our initiatives fail. We also continue to be surprised when researchers like Kamal Birdi and his colleagues from Sheffield and Leeds find that empowerment and extensive training are more positive determinants of organizational performance than any given operational initiative. But we knew that. We knew that one size does not fit all when it comes to Lean or Six Sigma or Theory of Constraints or TPM or any of the other members of the toolset. Why is this; that we continue to believe that improvement tools are sufficient when empowerment is more important?
There are multiple reasons we continue to focus on the tools. They are easy to specify. Consultants can teach them. Managers don’t have to be involved (they think). Problem employees, rickety organizational structure, blurred vision, lack of a burning platform and muddy planning don’t have to be remedied (we think). We don’t have to get messy input from employees and we don’t have to listen to them specifically and we don’t have to do what they want (we think).
It continues to surprise us how many of our clients and prospective clients don’t have a clear grasp of the proven fundamental approach to empowerment. Empowerment is not a group hug or anarchy of socialism. Empowerment comes from providing a clear, measurable work direction and desired (often daily or hourly) output measures at the workteam level. Surprisingly few organizations do that; but it’s not enough. Empowerment also comes from providing clear, proven standard methods to workers. Even fewer organizations do that; but even this is not enough. Empowerment comes from those two steps and also from allowing, enabling, encouraging and requiring the continuous improvement and re-teaching of those standards by and for those who know best; the folks carrying out the work. Hardly anyone seems to do that. But you can. Call Birdi when you do, and tell him that you have another data point to add to his database. Show him that not only British workers can be empowered and extensively trained to improve operational performance.
Back to top of page