See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238595268

Lean human resources; redesigning HR processes for a culture of continuous

improvement, by C. M. Jekiel

Article  in  International Journal of Production Research · January 2011

DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2011.580988

CITATIONS READS

4 1,087

1 author:

Jos Benders
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
184 PUBLICATIONS   2,095 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lean in organizational praxis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jos Benders on 23 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Production Research
Vol. 50, No. 4, 15 February 2012, 1237–1238

Lean human resources; redesigning HR processes for a culture of continuous improvement,

by C. M. Jekiel, Productivity Press, Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 2010,
(softcover), pg xxii & 241, £25.99, US$39.95, ISBN 978-1-4398-1306-5

After several decades of attempts to implement ‘‘kaizen’’ or ‘‘continuous improvement’’

in Europe and the USA, the results appear meagre. Time and again, continuous
improvement turns out to be very hard to sustain. This provides a sharp contrast with the
success of the ‘‘hard’’ elements of the Toyota Production System. Ironically, the hard part
is getting the soft elements to work. Based on her extensive experience, Jekiel writes about
realising the necessary culture change. She emphasises the role of the Human Resources
department, which should act as a business partner to help and stimulate other
departments getting continuous improvement to flourish. Quintessential to that is that
HR should practice what it preaches: HR processes need to be (re)designed so that the
needed services are provided effectively and efficiently. Jekiel works out how HR should
act in line with the business strategy, and what that macro perspective means at the micro
level down to single jobs.
The book’s target readership clearly consists of practitioners. Perhaps it is thus not
appropriate to point out that it does not contain explicit references to other publications.
As the so-called ‘‘relevance gap’’ can not be bridged from the academic side alone, and
because IJPR is an academic journal, I would like to point to a few academic publications
which appear relevant for Jekiel’s argument. The first one is the distinction of Adler and
Borys (1996) between coercive and enabling ways in which standard procedures can be
used. Standardised procedures are part and parcel of continuous improvement à la
Toyota, and then meant to be enabling. But they often do not work out this way. As Conti
and Warner expressed it on the basis of UK cases: ‘‘the labour process in the visited sites is
contradictory, with employees working four hours a month in a very non-Taylorist
manner to make their work for the rest of the month even more Taylor-like’’ (1993: 39).
In the book I missed attention to this contentious topic: what to do when the coercive
potential gets the overhand? Another relevant study is Besser’s (1996) work on Toyota’s
Greenfield plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. She described how pervasive Toyota’s efforts
are to influence, or perhaps rather to brainwash, the local community to ensure that
its employees are continuously reminded how their well-being depends on Toyota’s
success and therewith their cooperation. A further limitation is that no attention is paid to
the role of employee representatives, such as unions or work’s councils. As continuous
improvement requires employees to actively participate and thus buy into the concept,
it seems prudent to positively involve their representatives in getting and keeping
continuous improvement off the ground. From a European perspective, this limitation is
remarkable for an author with a background in HR, but is understandable reflecting
the American origin of the author. Nevertheless, it is a constraint for the book’s use
in countries where management-employee relationships tend to be cooperative, in other
words: where both parties prefer ‘‘dancing’’ instead of ‘‘boxing’’, and arguably even
stronger where ‘‘boxing’’ is the norm.

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.580988
http://www.tandfonline.com
1238 Book reviews

Yet working out such issues would have extended the currently 200-plus pages of
prescriptions. It is rare for a practitioner to write a book based on personal experiences,
and Jekiel must be applauded for having done that. HR practitioners may, and should,
benefit from that.

J. Benders
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven & Tilburg University
Belgium
Email: jos.benders@uvt.nl
ß 2012 J. Benders

References

Adler, P.S. and Borys, B., 1996. Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 61–89.
Besser, T., 1996. Team Toyota; Transplanting the Toyota Culture to the Camry Plant in Kentucky.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Conti, R. and Warner, M., 1993. Taylorism, new technology and just-in-time systems in Japanese
manufacturing. New Technology, Work and Employment, 8 (1), 31–42.
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.

View publication stats