University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How a leader's behaviors mitigate barriers encountered during lean implementation in administrative areas: a phenomenological study

(USC Thesis Other)

How a leader's behaviors mitigate barriers encountered during lean implementation in administrative areas: a phenomenological study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content How a Leader’s Behaviors Mitigate Barriers Encountered During Lean Implementation in
Administrative Areas: A Phenomenological Study
Rachel L. Reuter
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2023

© Copyright by Rachel L. Reuter 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Rachel L. Reuter certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Maria Ott
Douglas Lynch
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The overwhelming failure at implementing Lean has not gone unnoticed. Middle managers
implementing Lean in administrative areas face barriers they must overcome. While learning
how to apply the technical aspects of Lean, middle managers must employ the socio aspects to
teach and lead others, balancing transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. This
study sought to understand the leader’s experience and behaviors while mitigating the barriers
encountered implementing Lean. Burke-Litwin’s model of organizational performance and
change informed the conceptual framework, which places middle management in the center of
the vortex of the organization. Interviews of middle managers with demonstrated success in
implementing Lean focused on their experiences learning Lean, teaching others, organizational
culture impacts, and barrier mitigation. Additionally, recommendations include early
engagement of leadership and comprehensive training unique to each individual’s needs with
inclusion of the socio aspect of Lean.
Keywords: Lean, middle management, administration, barriers

v
Dedication
To Drs. Roy and Ellen Reuter, my parents, thank you for instilling a love of learning and
supporting my education. Although you are no longer physically with us, I have felt your
presence throughout my journey.

To Sydney, my daughter, thank you for being the best daughter I could want; I am so glad you
picked me to be your mom.

To my family, my cheerleaders, thank you for your encouragement and for celebrating my
milestones. Dean, you are so much more than my big brother, your belief in me kept me going.
Lou Anne, the sister I never had, we do not share parents, but we share so much more. Taylor
and Hannah, I hope this helps convince you that you can accomplish anything; you have the
Reuter blood.

To my study group, thank you for all the laughs, texts, zoom calls, and not much studying.

vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my committee for challenging me to think deeper and consider other
perspectives through my doctoral journey. I deeply appreciate your willingness to engage in
dialogue, your devotion to teaching others, and your patience as we learn. You each shed light on
my path but let me make the journey my own. To the remaining faculty and staff at USC, you
have each guided me along the way and helped shape me into a more enlightened person. I am
forever grateful for my study participants, their honest, open sharing made my study possible.
Finally, I send my appreciation to Melissa Cochran, a fellow student, who answered so many
questions and grew to be a great friend.
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this dissertation can be addressed to
Rachel.reuter44@gmail.com

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice.................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 3
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Lean Management ............................................................................................................. 10
Lean in Administrative Work ........................................................................................... 24
Barriers to Lean Implementation ...................................................................................... 29
Lean as an Organizational Change ................................................................................... 33
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 43
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 45
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 46
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 46
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 46

viii
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 48
Data Source: Interviews .................................................................................................... 50
Data Source: Document Analysis ..................................................................................... 54
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 56
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 58
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 58
Interview Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................... 61
Document Collection and Analysis .................................................................................. 61
Findings for Research Question 1: Leader’s Experience Learning and Coaching ........... 62
Discussion for Research Question 1 ................................................................................. 79
Findings for Research Question 2: Organizational Culture .............................................. 79
Discussion for Research Question 2 ................................................................................. 88
Findings for Research Question 3: Overcoming Barriers ................................................. 88
Discussion for Research Question 3 ............................................................................... 102
Tensions .......................................................................................................................... 102
Discussion for Tensions .................................................................................................. 108
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 108
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion....................................................................... 110
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 110
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 116
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 123
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 123
Connection to the USC Rossier Mission ........................................................................ 124
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 124

ix
References ................................................................................................................................... 126
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 139
Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 144

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Examples of Administrative Waste 26
Table 2: Data Sources 48
Table 3: Participants: Pseudonym, Years at DGI, Lean Learning Method,
Work Experience
60
Table 4: Research Question 1 Subthemes: Learning 63
Table 5: Participant Quotes: Questions to Promote Learning 70
Table 6: Examples of Various Leadership Style Use 76
Table 7: Research Question 2 Subthemes: Organizational Culture 80
Table 8: Research Question 3 Subthemes: Overcoming Barriers 89
Table 9: Findings and Recommendations Crosswalk 121
Table A1: Interview Questions 141

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change 35
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 44
Figure 3: Participant Emotion Word Usage 105

xii
List of Abbreviations
CPI Continuous performance improvement
CQI Continuous quality improvement
DGI Durable Goods, Inc.
IRB Institutional review board
IMVP International Motor Vehicle Program
JIT Just in time
LSP Lean supportive practices
LSS Lean Six Sigma
LTP Lean technical practices
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NUMMI New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated
TPM Total preventative maintenance
TPS Toyota Production System
TQM Total quality management
USC University of Southern California
VSM Value stream mapping

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Implementing an organizational change is difficult, as illustrated by the number that fails.
Estimates are as high as 60% to 70% of unsuccessful change initiatives due to abandonment (Al-
Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational change initiatives require
various resources, including time, money, and people. Organizations waste resources when
change initiatives fail or organizations abandon their change efforts (Smits & Bowden, 2015).
Although researchers and practitioners studied the implementation of Lean management, Loyd et
al. (2020) estimated that less than 30% of organizations that attempted implementation
successfully sustained Lean practices and achieved significant results. Lean management
simultaneously strives to increase business value while eliminating waste (Jadhav et al., 2014)
through continuous improvement (Fullerton et al., 2014). Failure to implement Lean
management throughout an organization negatively impacts organizational performance.
Through a systematic literature review, Jadhav et al. (2014) identified barriers to implementing
Lean, including resistance at various levels of the organization, inadequate training, misaligned
motivational incentives, and communication issues. More specifically, Lean’s application in
administrative areas increases challenges due to the unique characteristics of the work (Hadid &
Mansouri, 2014). Further, Reynders et al. (2022) illustrated the critical role of middle managers
in implementing and sustaining Lean in an organization. Addressing the leader’s role in the
implementation and sustainment of Lean in administrative areas is essential to utilize limited
organizational resources and fully maximize organizational performance.
Background of the Problem
Krafcik (1988) first used the term Lean in an article comparing automobile
manufacturing plants regarding technology, quality, efficiency, and management. Krafcik used
2

the term Lean as the opposite of buffered when evaluating the amount of inventory maintained
between manufacturing processes. Buffered was the necessary inventory level used to protect
impacts from mishaps between previous and subsequent processes. On the other hand, Lean
implied a minimization of inventory. Minimal inventory caused problems to surface so workers
could resolve the issues. Krafcik’s initial use of Lean in 1988 focused on inventory levels and
resources. Since the introduction of the term Lean, the understanding of Lean has grown.
Literature on Lean has increased in quantity and scope since its introduction. The
Womack et al. (1990) book, The Machine That Changed the World, was the first broadly
published work studying Lean through the lens of automobile manufacturing. Later, Samuel et
al. (2015) identified several themes in the study of Lean, including Lean as a representation of
the Toyota Production System (TPS), Lean as a process improvement methodology, Lean as a
movement, and finally, Lean as an academic body of literature. As the understanding of Lean
expanded beyond transitional TPS tools, the applicability extended beyond traditional
automobile manufacturing to other industries and other parts of the organization (Stone, 2012).
Over the past three decades, the study of Lean has grown from the initial investigation of
Japanese manufacturing techniques of automobiles using minimal inventories to applications
beyond manufacturing and organizational cultural implications of Lean.
The expansion of Lean has not been without challenges. In a literature review, Jadhav et
al. (2014) explored several barriers encountered during Lean implementation. These barriers
include implementation in an unstable environment, partial implementation, and human
impediments. The human barriers include the lack of top management support and involvement,
employee resistance, and poor change management leadership. Additionally, Staats et al. (2011)
recognized that administrative work differs from manufacturing in task uncertainty, invisible
3

processes, task complexity, and lack of task repetition in implementing Lean in administrative
areas. Implementing Lean in administrative areas requires overcoming barriers common to
manufacturing and additional barriers unique to administrative work.
The understanding of Lean has increased from various tools used in manufacturing to an
overarching business and management philosophy which increases the complexity of
implementation and sustainment. The implementation of Lean represents an example of a
significant organizational change impacting all organization levels and multiple functions
beyond manufacturing. Moreover, Galli (2018) reviewed five popular models of change
management, which all have a common component: management has a crucial role.
Implementing Lean beyond the application of tools requires management support.
As the understanding and usage of Lean have grown, the implementation has become
more complex. Lean began as a group of tools used to minimize inventory in manufacturing
processes and has grown to an enterprise-wide methodology and philosophy used throughout an
organization. Over four decades of literature and practice for implementing Lean exists for
manufacturing processes; however, the study of the application in administrative areas began in
the early 2000s (Gupta et al., 2016). Researchers only recently expanded the study of Lean to
administrative areas, which present unique problems.
Organizational Context and Mission
Durable Goods, Inc. (DGI), a pseudonym, is the North American subsidiary of a global
organization. DGI is responsible for product design, manufacturing, sales, and financing of
consumer goods. DGI has several manufacturing facilities throughout North America and a
headquarters operation in the central United States. The headquarters operations employ over
3,500 regular, full-time employees and over 2,500 contract members. The mission of DGI is to
4

make the world a better place by producing happiness for all. DGI accomplishes its mission by
delivering world-class products and services using core values of respect for all people and the
quest for improvement. DGI has been in operation for over 3 decades and has experienced
success and growth.
DGI has successfully implemented Lean management in both manufacturing and
administrative areas since beginning operations in North America. Organizations often measure
their performance related to organizational change in financial terms. DGI, as a component of the
larger global organization, has shown successful performance in several measures. Macrotrends
reports favorable financial measures, including consistently positive net income, operating
income, and gross profit. In addition, daily stock prices have increased over 1000% from 1977 to
2022, and earnings per share have continuously been positive since 2010, often improving
yearly. Beyond financial performance, JD Power and Associates have consistently recognized
DGI products and manufacturing locations for dependability and quality. Finally, continued sales
with a steady increase in market share are DGI’s ultimate measure of success.
This study focuses on the DGI headquarters operations administration areas, including
Human Resources, Information Systems and Technology, Accounting, Legal, Shared Services,
External Affairs, Sales, Marketing, and Product Planning. Many members in the administrative
functions lack experience in manufacturing; however, some members may have been based at a
manufacturing plant and had various levels of exposure to Lean manufacturing practices.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study aims to understand, from a leader’s perspective, how barriers encountered
during implementation of Lean are overcome. Transitioning to a Lean environment represents an
example of organizational change. Organizational changes create a ripple effect throughout the
5

organization, including goals, strategies, culture, climate, systems, policies, practices, and
individual tasks. This study will use the following research questions to understand the leader’s
experience during the implementation of Lean:
1. What is the leader’s experience when implementing Lean in administrative areas?
2. How do leaders perceive the organizational culture supports or hinders the
implementation of Lean in administrative areas?
3. What behaviors do leaders value for overcoming barriers encountered while
implementing Lean in administrative areas?
Importance of the Study
Studies have shown that a Lean organization improves organizational performance.
Organizations using Lean practices benefit from improved customer and fiscal metrics. Hadid et
al. (2016) showed the relationship of Lean practices to both financial performance and
operational performance. Meanwhile, Poksinska et al. (2017) reported Lean improved financial
performance through efficiency gains. Research has shown Lean has positive effects on an
organization’s performance.
Although the literature on Lean has increased over time, there is a noticeable gap in
change leader behaviors, Lean as an organizational change, and Lean implementation studies in
administrative areas. Stone (2012) summarized the growth of Lean literature in phases including
initial discovery, documentation of techniques and jargon, implementation, and measurement of
success, and, most recently, expansion beyond manufacturing. Administrative areas present
unique challenges when compared to manufacturing, including task uncertainty and complexity,
process visibility, and lack of repetition (Staats et al., 2011). This study focuses on the leader’s
6

experience, specifically middle management, while facilitating the organizational change needed
to implement and sustain Lean in administrative areas.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change contains examination
at multiple levels of the organization, including the external environment, executive leadership,
management, direct supervisor, and individual. Through this examination, an organization
considers its ability to implement and sustain change, including planning, identification of
barriers, support, execution, and evaluation, from past experiences and future changes (Burke,
2018). The individual components of the model categorize into transformational and
transactional factors (Burke, 2018; Olivier, 2017). The model further divided the transactional
factors into work unit and individual. Burke (2018) explained that the transformational
components include higher-level, further-reaching organizational elements such as mission and
strategy, organization culture, and leadership resulting from the interaction with the external
environment (Olivier, 2017). These drive the transactional factors, including systems (policies
and procedures), work unit climate, and structure, further impacting the individual factors with
task requirements and individual skills/abilities, motivation, and individual needs and values.
Organizational climate, including the individual’s perceptions of their workgroup’s effectiveness
and management practices, is foundational to this model (Burke, 2018). Another critical aspect is
the bidirectional influence between factors. Each factor influences the other factors (Olivier,
2017), creating a ripple effect within the factors. The Burke-Litwin model of organizational
change provides a framework to study the behaviors and influence of various levels of an
organization on the success of the implementation when transitioning to Lean.
7

The qualitative data gathering and analysis will study the leader behaviors within DGI, an
organization with proven promising practices. Middle managers who successfully implemented
Lean management in an administrative area will be interviewed to identify the successful
behaviors utilized. In addition, this study reviews relevant DGI documents in a document
analysis.
Definitions
Lean and organizational change use various terms in academic literature, popular
publications, and practice; however, a consensus is lacking on precise definitions. A list of
defined terms is provided to promote understanding.
Administrative area is a functional area of an organization that provides a service to
others. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) refer to service as anything that is not manufacturing,
agriculture, mining, or construction.
Change management uses defined tools and processes to lead change to achieve the
desired outcome (Galli, 2018).
Leader refers to an individual performing leadership processes. Northouse (2019)
explained that a leader need not be in a supervisory position and does not require an official title
of Leader.
Leadership, as defined by Northouse (2019), is the process when an individual or group,
the leader, influences another individual or group, the follower, to achieve a common goal.
Leadership as a process indicates that it is two-way, with both the leader and followers affected
by the process. Northouse further explains that academia has studied leadership for over a
century leading to a variety and evolution of definitions by scholars.
8

Lean refers to a systematic approach to simultaneously eliminate waste while adding
customer value (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014; Hopp & Spearman, 2021). In this definition, value
refers to activities or processes that modify a product or service to add value as perceived by the
customer; waste is anything that is not value (Stapleton et al., 2009). However, Ohno (1988)
initially classified waste into seven categories: overproduction, waiting, transportation, over-
processing, inventory, motion, and defects.
Lean leadership includes a collection of skills, practices, and behaviors used in
implementing Lean (van Assen, 2018).
Lean management is the daily application of Lean techniques, principles, systems, and
methodology to achieve Lean objectives (van Assen, 2018).
Lean principles are the tools used to aid in eliminating waste, adding value, or moving
the organization closer to the ideal Lean state (Stone, 2012).
Manager refers to an individual performing management activities. Poksinska et al.
(2013) indicated that an individual’s job title might differ from their duties. For example, a
Section Manager may be responsible for daily management activities and leadership actions such
as motivating, developing, and leading others to achieve long-term goals and objectives.
Middle management includes supervisory levels above the front-line managers and below
the top-level executives. Netland et al. (2020) further clarified middle management as
responsible for day-to-day operations in addition to achieving goals and objectives set up by
upper management.
Organization of the Dissertation
This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provides an introduction to the
problem, an overview of the organization to be studied, the purpose of the study, the guiding
9

theoretical framework, and a summary of the methodology. Chapter Two provides a literature
review related to the scope of the study. Topics in the literature review include the history of
Lean studies, challenges in defining Lean, Lean implementation in administrative areas, and
leader behaviors for the transition Lean and sustainment of Lean. This chapter also introduces
theoretical and conceptual frameworks focusing on organizational change and middle
management’s role. Chapter Three focuses on the study’s methodology, including an overview
of the methodology, an explanation of each method, participant selection, data collection, and
data analysis. This chapter will also review the research questions, the researcher, and ethics.
Chapter Four presents the study’s findings. Finally, Chapter Five will discuss the findings and
implications of the study.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Lean constantly seeks to eliminate waste, any unnecessary activity, while simultaneously
adding customer value. This study represents Lean as an ongoing organizational change. This
literature review aims to understand Lean management in administrative processes from a
perspective of organizational change, barriers, and leaders’ experiences and behaviors. Lean
literature began as the study of Japanese automotive manufacturing methodology. The literature
has expanded beyond manufacturing applications to other functions and industries and beyond
the initial description of tools and techniques to philosophies and management. Lean is a socio-
technical practice that balances the application of tools with human interactions. However, there
is little literature on Lean management in administrative areas from the perspective of leader
behaviors needed for successful implementation and sustainment. Further, middle management is
crucial in the implementation and sustainment of Lean in their role as an intermediary between
executives and staff. Several researchers represent an organizational change in models showing
leaders’ roles and phases of change (Galli, 2018). The Burke-Litwin model considers
transformational and transactional leader behaviors and various levels of the organization
throughout the change process. This literature review will look at the intersection of leader
behaviors and successful implementation of Lean in administrative areas.
Lean Management
The understanding of the concept of Lean has grown from its initial introduction in the
1980s to current. Initially, the term Lean described the unique Japanese approach to producing
automobiles. As the study continued, the literature matured to include Lean’s accomplishments,
how to implement Lean, the various roles within a Lean organization, and the breadth of
applications of Lean. Today, researchers recognize Lean as a socio-technical organizational
11

approach to continuously eliminate waste while increasing value with every organization
member participating.
History of Lean
The understanding of Lean has grown over time from the initial use of the term by
Krafcik to the current research, which expands beyond the original operational application in
manufacturing. Krafcik introduced the term in an initial study comparing Japanese and Western
automotive manufacturing. The book The Machine that Changed the World, first published in
1990, popularized the concept of Lean. Literature on Lean has expanded over the next 3 decades
growing from the explanation of practices to an enterprise-wide methodology of transformation
(Stone, 2012) and more recently expanding beyond manufacturing to administrative areas such
as healthcare, service, and education (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). Since the introduction of Lean,
the understanding and application has grown.
The study of Lean began by comparing Japanese and Western automotive manufacturing
techniques. In the mid-1980s, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) founded the
International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) as a commissioned five-year study of the
automotive industry (Loyd et al., 2020; Samuel et al., 2015; Yamamoto et al., 2019). Academia,
government, and industry jointly supported the study with participation from the United States,
Japan, and Europe (Womack et al., 1990). The study resulted in two seminal publications,
Krafcik’s Sloan Management Review article, Triumph of the Lean Production System (1988), and
Womack et al.’s (1990) book, The Machine That Changed the World. Krafcik (1988) compared
automotive manufacturing plants in Japan, the United States, and Europe to determine the impact
of plant location and ownership on quality and productivity levels. He identified that Japanese-
owned plants ran leaner, with less inventory between processes, and were more efficient. The
12

minimal inventory led to the descriptive term Lean. Several researchers have cited Krafcik’s
article as the origination of the term Lean (Francis et al., 2019; Psomas & Antony, 2019; Samuel
et al., 2015; Yamamoto et al., 2019). Meanwhile, academics, researchers, and practitioners
recognized Womack et al. for popularizing the term Lean. Francis et al. (2019) credited Womack
with nearly 8,000 first-author citations. In a book review, Santos (n.d.) referred to Womack et
al.’s book as a classic best-seller that presents Lean concepts in an easy-to-read format. Interest
in Lean has continued resulting in an update to the book in 2007. Researchers recognize both
Krafcik and Womack as founders of Lean in research and frequently cite their works.
Most researchers credit the Toyota Production System (TPS) as the origination of Lean;
however, the usage of TPS or Lean extends beyond Japan. Samuel et al. (2015) referred to Lean
as the “generic representation of TPS” (p. 1392). Toyota successfully utilized TPS practices in
Japan and several other countries. Toyota’s initial application of TPS in the United States began
in 1984 at New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated (NUMMI), a joint venture between
Toyota and General Motors. NUMMI had previously been one of General Motors’ lowest-
performing plants regarding quality, workforce relations, and productivity. After implementing
TPS, using the same workers, Toyota achieved success at NUMMI, as measured by reduced
absenteeism, improved quality, and increased productivity (Loyd et al., 2020). Several
researchers have recognized TPS as the predecessor of Lean (Francis et al., 2019; Harolds, 2022;
Hopp & Spearman, 2021; Parkes, 2015). Lean has grown beyond Toyota’s approach to
manufacturing automobiles in Japan.
Since the introduction and popularization of Lean, the literature has expanded. As the
understanding of Lean increased, literature has grown from descriptions of tools and techniques
to implementation methods extended to various organizations. In a review of 193 articles over 4
13

decades, Stone (2012) summarized the expansion of Lean through differentiating five phases of
Lean literature, beginning with discovery, moving to growth and the dissemination of
terminology, implementation challenges, utilization beyond manufacturing, and finally
measuring the impact on the organization. Similarly, Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) classified the
literature phases into Definition, Dissemination, Expansion, and Performance. Literature on the
application of Lean has also extended beyond automotive manufacturing. Several researchers
have studied Lean practices in other manufacturing processes (Jadhav et al., 2014; Psomas &
Antony, 2019), service organizations (Jadhav et al., 2014, Stone, 2012), logistics operations,
construction (Balle et al., 2006), and health care (Manos et al., 2006). Literature on Lean began
with defining Lean; as understanding has grown, literature has increased in depth and
application.
Definition of Lean Management
Along with the growing study of Lean, the definition of Lean has also grown without
consensus among researchers. Initially, Krafcik (1988) used the term Lean to describe minimal
inventory between processes to protect one process from negatively impacting another. Womack
extended the definition to indicate that Lean uses less of everything, including human resources,
inventory, time, and space (Psomas & Antony, 2019). In a review of 39 articles published
between 1988 and 2012, Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) noted the literature described Lean as a
way, a process, an approach, a system, a program, a practice, and a model. As the study of Lean
has expanded, the definition has also grown. There is little consensus on Lean’s definition
beyond the goal of eliminating waste while simultaneously seeking to add value.
Descriptions of Lean have varied and included what it is, what it seeks to achieve, or
where to apply. Francis et al. (2019) acknowledged that Lean means different things to different
14

people at different times, adding to the confusion. Lean definitions have included principles,
philosophy, concepts, tools, and techniques. Researchers generally recognize the goal of Lean as
eliminating waste while simultaneously adding customer value. However, some descriptions
have also included improving quality, reducing defects, reducing costs, minimizing inventory,
agility, levelizing production, and integrating the supply chain (Khalfallah & Lakhal, 2021). The
scope of Lean, initially focused on manufacturing operations, has extended to product
development, supply chain, the market, the environment, and ultimately an enterprise system
involving the entire organization (Yamamoto et al., 2019). Failure to consistently define Lean
has confused researchers and practitioners. Cusumano et al. (2021) suggested that the
continuously evolving definition of Lean creates challenges and difficulties in studying Lean and
its implementation. The lack of a clear and shared definition of Lean has impacted the study and
practice of Lean.
Although there is disagreement on the definition of Lean, explanations consistently
include two common concepts. At the most basic level, Lean continuously seeks to (a) increase
customer value while (b) eliminating waste (Hopp & Spearman, 2021). Taiichi Ohno, credited
with developing TPS (Francis et al., 2019), originally classified waste into seven categories:
overproduction, waiting, transportation, inappropriate processing, unnecessary inventory,
unnecessary motion, and defects (Ohno, 1988). Later, Harolds (2022) clarified customer value as
products and services for which the customer is willing to pay. Additionally, Harolds included
essential processes that the customer may not value but need due to regulations. Samuel et al.
(2015) reported that Womack recognized the term Lean placed too much emphasis on less rather
than emphasizing more value. Lean seeks to continuously balance adding value with using fewer
resources through eliminating waste.
15

With the expanded understanding of Lean, the term has grown from a noun to an
adjective to indicate increased usage of the practice. Initially, the automotive industry applied
Lean to manufacturing; however, to differentiate from other uses, Lean Manufacturing and Lean
Production are common terms related to manufacturing methods. Often, researchers reserve the
general term Lean to describe the goal of customer satisfaction while eliminating waste (Psomas
& Antony, 2019, Samuel et al., 2015). Lean can apply beyond manufacturing operations.
Chiarini (2013) used Lean Organization to describe Lean as applied to a whole organization,
while Jasti and Kodali (2014) used Lean Enterprise to illustrate the application of Lean from
suppliers through to the customer. Funston (2013) does not differentiate Lean Manufacturing
from Lean Thinking in a thesis case study evaluating the techniques when quality professionals
implemented Lean in their processes. Lean can also extend beyond the tools and techniques. May
(2005) refers to Lean Thinking as all workforce members utilizing problem-solving and critical
thinking when delivering service to customers. On the other hand, Solaimani et al. (2019)
indicated Lean Philosophy applies to the focus on the goal of increasing customer value through
employee contributions throughout the enterprise. Furthermore, Stone (2012) denoted leanness
to describe an organization’s stage of transformation to Lean. Researchers have also employed
Lean to describe various applications. Lean Service has been used for service organizations
(Ferenhof et al., 2018), while van Rossum et al. (2016) referred to Lean Healthcare, and
Solaimani et al. applied leanovation to describe the application of Lean in innovation. The
growth of Lean has brought about an assortment of new terms to differentiate the application of
the principles.
Lean is an approach used by an organization to continuously strive toward zero waste
while simultaneously increasing value from the customer’s perspective. Lean Management
16

includes the transition and sustainment of an organization to adopt a Lean approach by every
member, for every process, every day.
Operations Improvement Methodologies
Practitioners have used numerous operations improvement methods in conjunction with
Lean. These methods either described a portion of Lean or were a substitute for Lean.
Researchers described Lean as a collection of operations improvement methods, including just-
in-time (JIT), total preventive maintenance (TPM), total quality management (TQM), and human
resource management (Hadid et al., 2016; Psomas & Antony, 2019; Shah & Ward, 2003).
However, Kim et al. (2006) differentiated Lean from other manufacturing improvement
methodologies by indicating Lean uses value stream mapping (VSM) to drive change,
eliminating waste from the customer’s perspective involving all members of an organization.
While each of these practices has some elements in common with Lean, they are not
replacements for Lean.
Literature has compared several operations improvement methods to Lean, although most
are more narrowly focused than Lean. The focus of JIT is to establish a smooth flow between
processes by synchronizing production time with customer needs. Khalfallah and Lakhal (2021)
explained JIT is a continuous improvement approach using techniques to eliminate waste
through inventory reduction. TPM’s goal is to increase the utilization of equipment. TPM
reduces variation through preventative equipment maintenance (Hopp & Spearman, 2021).
Further, Khalfallah and Lakhal describe TPM as a method to optimize equipment utilization
through predictive and preventive maintenance. Stapleton et al. (2009) utilized the continuous
performance improvement (CPI) methodology to adopt Lean in a hospital setting, primarily
using kaizen, or concentrated improvement events, rather than continual daily improvement. In
17

this study, the researchers described CPI as an approach that uses VSM to identify waste and
scientific methods to eliminate waste while keeping service to the customer as a priority.
Practitioners have used, and researchers have studied other operations improvement methods;
however, their focus is often narrow and fails to incorporate the comprehensive approach of
Lean fully.
Six Sigma has gained popularity but does not include the breadth of Lean. Six Sigma
began at Motorola in 1987 as a defect management tool and expanded to include other uses of
statistics in controlling quality (Hopp & Spearman, 2021). In reviews of various operations
improvement approaches, Yamamoto et al. (2019) and Funston (2013) described Six Sigma as a
strategy to improve processes using statistical techniques to reduce variation and eliminate
defects. In addition to Six Sigma, other approaches to enhance quality include Total Quality
Management (TQM) and Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). TQM focuses on achieving
high quality of the final product, while CQI utilizes Deming’s plan-do-check-act thinking
focused on quality (Kim et al., 2006). Six Sigma, TQM, and CQI focus on quality through defect
elimination rather than adding value. Lean Six Sigma (LSS), later introduced, incorporated
concepts from both Six Sigma and Lean. LSS combined statistical variation reduction tools with
waste elimination tools and techniques (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014; Hopp & Spearman, 2021;
Makwana & Patange, 2021). Six Sigma’s statistical approach missed elements of Lean, resulting
in the introduction of LSS, which has similar goals to Lean but is not a replacement.
In addition to Lean, researchers have studied several operations improvement methods;
however, these improvement methods fail to substitute for Lean. While each method emphasizes
specific improvement areas, none of the methods are complete replacements for Lean.
18

Lean as a Socio-Technical Approach
Successful implementation of Lean entails a holistic approach, including technical and
human components, while impacting all areas of an organization. Organizations should consider
technical and human aspects to ensure members have the skills to implement Lean. In a review
of empirical studies over 15 years, Ferenhof et al. (2018) identified practical improvement skills
that are handed down through coaching, thus integrating the technical and human development
aspects of Lean. Practical improvement skills often relate to problem-solving, which workers
learn through participating in daily problem-solving activities led by a more experienced member
(Ferenhof et al., 2018). Each phase of Lean implementation, from transition to sustainment,
should consider technical and human components. In a literature review of 209 Lean
Manufacturing articles between 1988 and 2012, Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) recognized the
need for technical and leadership considerations before, during, and after transitioning to Lean.
Organizational attention to both technical and human aspects of Lean facilitates the transition
and sustainment of Lean.
Failure to apply both technical and social practices limits the impact of Lean. Hadid and
Mansouri (2014) differentiated between Lean Technical Practices (LTP) and Lean Supportive
Practices (LSP) when initially defining Lean Service. LTP focused on the methods used to
identify and eliminate waste. On the other hand, LSP focused on human-related factors,
including leadership, employees, development, and relationships. Later, in a self-administered
questionnaire to 99 United Kingdom organizations, Hadid et al. (2016) demonstrated both LTP
and LSP were positively related to each other and to organizational performance when
implementing Lean. Organizations can fully realize Lean’s positive impact when utilizing both
technical and human practices.
19

Lean recognizes that all members of the organization contribute to ongoing improvement
efforts. Individual process operators are intimately familiar with their work, are the experts in
their job, and contribute to problem-solving in their work area. In a survey of 349 members with
Lean experience, Loyd et al. (2020) acknowledged the recognition of front-line workers as the
most knowledgeable of value creation in their process, which supported daily problem-solving
efforts. Through coaching, employees develop problem-solving skills used later to improve their
process. During kaizen events at a children’s hospital, staff members learned problem-solving
methods, which they later used to improve their work area (Stapleton et al., 2009). Lean utilizes
participation from all organization members to fully realize the benefits.
Scholars categorized the technical aspects of Lean into waste identification and waste
elimination tools. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) identified 37 technical practices; six supported
waste identification, 26 supported waste elimination, and eight supported practices that did not
directly identify or eliminate waste but did aid in the process. VSM is a tool frequently used for
waste identification. Once identified, practitioners eliminate waste through kaizen or continuous
improvement. In a literature review of 178 articles, Jasti and Kodali (2014) reported that VSM
and kaizen, continuous improvement, appeared in 44% of the articles. Technical practices
include tools that support waste identification and elimination.
Lean contains both human, socio, and technical elements. The socio elements focus on
development and relationships among workers and supervisors. The technical elements are tools
used predominantly for problem identification and resolution, often related to one of the seven
types of waste. Lean’s success is dependent on both the socio and technical elements.
20

Lean Culture
Organizational culture is a collection of visible and invisible values, beliefs, and customs
that guide members’ behaviors and actions. Schein (2017) identified three levels of
organizational culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions.
The artifacts represent observable behaviors and environmental features. In an organization, the
language of continuous improvement would demonstrate the artifact level of a Lean culture.
Stone (2012) labeled the literature period from 1991 to 1996 as dissemination. Researchers and
practitioners developed a shared language, including terms such as kaizen and Kanban and using
Lean as an adjective. The promoted values of Lean include customer focus and continuous
improvements through systematic problem solving. Customer value has persisted as an element
of Lean over time (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014). The final level, underlying assumptions, is the
deep-rooted traditions that guide member behaviors. Schein recognized this as difficult to change
and requires consistent reinforcement of new desired behaviors before they truly become the new
culture.
Several researchers have identified cultural characteristics that are common among
successful Lean organizations. Two prominent characteristics are continuous improvement and
engagement of all. Continuous improvement as a culture extends beyond improvement events to
daily activity reinforced through coaching. Loyd et al. (2020) recognized the importance of
cultural characteristics and middle management’s role in developing all employees as problem
solvers. Further, Reynders et al. (2022) conveyed the presence of these cultural characteristics
when describing leadership’s role in Lean. Finally, Netland et al. (2020) stated the ultimate goal
of Lean is to inspire a culture of daily continuous improvement. Lean is now understood to be
21

more than the application of tools or technical practices and extends throughout the organization
involving all members for the greatest success.
The Leader’s Role in Lean
In addition to traditional leadership roles, leaders in a Lean organization have additional
duties to ensure the Lean approach stays consistent. Leaders’ roles may differ based on the level
of responsibility; however, some elements are common regardless of position or job title.
Various levels of an organization need different leadership approaches when implementing Lean.
Tortorella and Fogliatto (2017) linked leadership styles to four levels of leadership. As the level
of responsibility increases, leadership focus shifts from directing to coaching to supporting. This
shift in styles also aligns with a shift from transactional to transformational as responsibilities
increase. Middle management, however, has a unique position as an intermediatory between
upper and lower levels in the organization. In a literature review, Reynders et al. (2022)
identified several critical activities for middle management in a Lean organization, including
worksite walks, continuous improvement promotion, self-development, and coaching. All
leaders in the organization impact the successful implementation of Lean.
Lean encourages all leaders to spend time at the worksite to observe and connect with
employees. Netland et al. (2020) recommended leaders observe, with their own eyes, what is
happening in the work area. A presence at the job site also helps to build commitment from
workers. Reynders et al. (2022) explained worksite walks show care and concern for workers,
provide an opportunity to recognize employee contributions, and help leaders to identify waste
and improvement opportunities. Further, Aij and Teunissen (2017) found that a leader’s presence
at the worksite helps builds relationships with employees by showing care and providing
recognition. Involving employees in decision-making is another leadership attribute in Lean.
22

Gelei et al. (2015) identified leader interpersonal skills to build trust, encourage participation and
build confidence through feedback, supported Lean technique usage. In Lean, employee
contributions extend beyond performing the daily work to participating in improving their own
and others’ processes.
Middle managers continuously promote improvement through leading activities,
encouraging participation, and recognizing others’ efforts. Netland et al. (2020) proposed that a
leader’s role is not to solve all the problems but rather to coach others to develop problem-
solving capabilities. Through worksite visits, leaders can identify areas of improvement and
ensure improvement efforts are successful. Ferenhof et al. (2018) acknowledged the leader’s role
in understanding the current situation, including prioritizing problem areas. Leaders then coach
members to make improvements through an iterative process of questioning and experimentation
to achieve desired results. Solaimani et al. (2019) emphasized a learning routine that included
iterative experimentation. Middle management participation is essential in promoting continuous
improvement to workers at all levels.
Middle managers reflect the notion of continuous improvement in their own self-
development initiatives. Lean expects all leaders to understand the technical aspects of Lean
while not necessarily having the solution to every problem. Lleo et al. (2017) identified Lean
technical competence, such as problem-solving methods, as a middle manager behavior
necessary to build employee trust. However, Lleo et al. also found Lean does not require
managers to have the solution to the problems but to understand the process to arrive at the best
solution. An openness to input from others demonstrates acknowledgment that the leader is not
all-knowing. Encouraging and accepting input from workers recognizes the worker’s expert
knowledge (Espíndola et al., 2019; Lleo et al., 2020; Loyd et al., 2020; Reynders et al., 2022;
23

Solaimani et al., 2019; van Rossum et al., 2016). All employees, including leaders, enhance their
skills through experience. Failure to include middle management in the change process limits
their ability to learn (Holmemo & Ingvaldsen, 2016). Self-development continually improves a
leader’s skills and capabilities, from recognizing the need to learn to the actual development
activity.
Lean organizations require leaders to recognize their own technical and social abilities. In
a review of 32 articles, Aij and Teunissen (2017) identified leadership principles focused on self-
development and improvement culture. The researchers emphasized interpersonal skills in self-
development attributes, including emotional intelligence, motivation, inspiration, and facilitation.
Improvement culture also stressed technical aspects, such as problem identification and problem-
solving, and interpersonal skills incorporating effective feedback, empowering employees, and
learning from mistakes. Aij and Teunissen’s leadership principles align with the socio-technical
view of Lean.
As well as self-development, in a Lean organization, one of the leader’s responsibilities is
to develop subordinates through coaching, often during problem-solving activities. Leaders use
standard methods for problem identification, problem-solving, and coaching as a framework for
employee development in Lean. Ferenhof et al. (2018) illustrated that Lean leaders use
methodologies to identify problems, scientific approaches to solve problems, and robust
coaching to develop subordinates’ problem-solving skills. Lean organizations use problem-
solving methods to continuously improve all processes with input from all members, especially
those directly performing work in the improved areas. Loyd et al. (2020) recognized that Lean
creates a culture in which every employee is a problem solver. Further, Stapleton et al. (2009)
identified the success of improvement initiatives when participants ignored job titles and
24

recognized all employee contributions equally. The development of subordinates often occurs
through coaching during actual problem-solving activities.
In addition to coaching, Lean uses mentorship and the knowledge handed down from
more experienced members to less experienced ones. Through ongoing questioning, a leader
challenges the subordinate to think deeply about an issue rather than providing answers directly.
Ferenhof et al. (2018) called this practice coaching kata in a systematic literature review of
empirical studies seeking to understand Toyota’s continuous improvement practices and barriers.
Netland et al. (2020) and Reynders et al. (2022) also advocated the iterative questioning
approach from more experienced members to less experienced as a means of development.
Rather than encourage learning in a classroom, Lean utilizes hands-on activities led by
experienced members to develop others.
Lean in Administrative Work
Lean concepts began in manufacturing processes and expanded to other areas. The
expansion included functions other than manufacturing and industries beyond manufacturing. In
manufacturing organizations, Psomas and Antony (2019) recognized the need for an enterprise-
wide approach to Lean, including all functions, to realize the maximum benefit and encourage
sustainability. The expansion of Lean into non-manufacturing industries has grown over time.
Hadid and Mansouri (2014) tracked the growth by reviewing 214 articles. Lean literature in
administrative work began in health care, broadened to general office work, and eventually grew
into education and other areas. Although Lean started in manufacturing, administrative areas
have adapted the practice for successful use.
25

Lean in Administration
Lean’s goal of simultaneously eliminating waste and increasing customer value is
applicable in administrative processes as well as manufacturing processes. Lean’s initial
expansion into health care may be due to health care’s similarities with manufacturing. Manos et
al. (2006) compared health care to manufacturing and identified several similarities, including
receiving, parts and patients; inventory, work in process and medical supplies; testing, quality
inspections and medical tests; and processes, parts assembly, and surgery. The abundance of
similarities between health care and manufacturing made it the natural first step in the expansion
of Lean. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) reviewed 221 articles on Lean implementation in non-
manufacturing areas and reported that over 50% of the literature came from health care and
office operations. Health care dominated Lean’s initial expansion beyond manufacturing.
Lean has proven successful beyond manufacturing applications. Several studies in health
care reported successful results in implementing Lean, establishing the ability to expand the
approach. In a study of 17 Veteran Affairs medical centers, Engle et al. (2017) differentiated
management practices in successful continuous improvement initiatives. Fryer et al. (2018)
indicated management commitment impacted worker support and the success of Lean.
Additionally, studies beyond health care have shown the promising practice of Lean in
administrative work. Hadid et al. (2016) indicated a positive relationship between Lean practices
and organizational performance in a study including 99 organizations from various industries,
including banking, education, insurance, retail, and hospitality. Lean’s success has extended
beyond manufacturing to a variety of industries.
26

Common Elements
Both manufacturing and administration work include inputs, processes, and outputs.
Manufacturing and administration both have instances of Ohno’s seven types of waste. Manos et
al. (2006) provided examples of waste encountered in health care, including unnecessary tests,
too many supplies, walking between patients, and waiting patients. Table 1 presents a summary
of the categories of waste, definitions, and examples taken from the healthcare industry. Harolds
(2022) extended the explanations of waste to include the negative impact and provided
suggestions for reducing or eliminating each type of waste. Every type of waste is present in both
manufacturing and administrative processes.

Table 1
Examples of Administrative Waste
Category of waste Definition Healthcare example
Overproduction Making more than is needed at a
given time

Unnecessary tests
Inventory Having more parts or supplies than
needed

Excess supplies
Motion Excess human movement Walking between patients
Overprocessing Processing more than is necessary

Duplicate data entry
Defects Products or services that do not
meet the established standards

Errors in orders
Waiting Delay or stagnation of a person or
part

Patients waiting for services
Transportation Moving work, parts, or supplies Moving patients between
services

27

Unique Elements
Although waste is present in manufacturing and administrative processes, it manifests
slightly differently. In manufacturing, processes are easily observable, making waste visible;
however, the work and flow in administrative processes are often not visible. Chiarini (2013)
described administrative waste in terms of information stagnation and resources waiting.
Examples of administrative waste included staff waiting, information piling up, duplicate
processes, excessive staff motion, delayed approvals, and unread emails. Further, the researcher
indicated administrative waste was often hidden and not visible to the casual observer, making
the waste difficult to identify. The identification of waste is challenging in administrative
processes due to non-observable processes.
Process characteristics also differentiate administrative work from manufacturing work.
The unique characteristics relate to the workers, the process, and the customers. Hadid et al.
(2016) identified distinguishing administrative work characteristics, including customer presence
at the process; increased process variation or heterogeneity; labor-intensive processes; and
intangibility. Further, administrative work requires advanced thinking and interpersonal skills.
Finally, workers in administration areas often need advanced cognitive skills, collaboration
among members, and cross-functional relationships (May, 2005). Unique process characteristics
of administrative work impact the implementation of Lean.
Application of Lean Tools in Administrative Work
Researchers have presented various tools used in implementing Lean; however, similar to
the definition of Lean, there is a lack of agreement on the tools. Hopp and Spearman (2021)
explained even though a consensus is lacking, each new explanation of Lean tools increases
understanding. Tools and techniques used in Lean are constantly changing as practitioners learn
28

new approaches through experience. Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) identified that the literature
continually evolves with the introduction of new tools and techniques. Literature reflects new
tools that practitioners introduce, leading to increased understanding.
Researchers have used categorization in reviewing tools and techniques to simplify the
explanation. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) presented a collection of the tools categorized into
technical and supportive practices. Hadid et al. (2016) later used the categorization of practices
in a questionnaire to investigate the impact of the practices on organizational performance in the
service sector. The technical practices primarily focused on identifying and eliminating waste;
the supportive practices were related to management actions and behaviors. Hopp and Spearman
(2021) categorized the tools based on the application span, including process, flow between
processes, network, and organizational. Researchers used categorization or grouping to help
clarify and explain the tools and techniques of Lean.
As one of the primary goals of Lean, waste elimination, Lean tools and techniques often
aid in identifying and eliminating waste. The literature consistently recognized VSM as a tool to
help identify various types of waste (Harolds, 2022). In an article describing the application of
Lean in healthcare, the researcher explained that practitioners used VSM to document
administrative processes using symbols and notations to show the series of activities in a process
allowing key metrics to be measured. VSM illustrates decisions, information flow, wait times,
process accuracy, and usage of human resources. Funston (2013) demonstrated the use of VSM
in office environments in a case study conducted for a master’s thesis. VSM is a tool frequently
used to aid in waste identification of administrative processes.
Although using tools is critical in implementing Lean, failure to recognize the socio or
philosophical aspects will impact success. The tools help achieve short-term results; however,
29

organizations also need to consider the philosophical and human features for lasting effects. In a
literature review to identify research gaps, Psomas and Antony (2019) reported there is
agreement that the focus on the application of the tools will not produce lasting results.
Similarly, Cusumano et al. (2021) acknowledged Lean consists of both practical applications and
thinking practices. Lean tools support the implementation; however, organizations will likely not
achieve or sustain success without consideration of socio and philosophical aspects.
Barriers to Lean Implementation
Barriers impact the success of implementing Lean. These barriers apply in manufacturing
and administrative applications, with administrative processes adding some unique challenges.
Common barriers include knowledge and skills of tools and techniques, motivation of employees
to continue efforts, and leadership factors. Administration processes have unique characteristics,
further complicating the implementation of Lean. Organizations pursuing Lean implementation
in administrative areas face barriers encountered by manufacturing processes and barriers unique
to administration.
Common Barriers
Several factors inhibit the successful implementation of Lean. Lack of technical
knowledge of the tools, techniques, leader processes, and problem-solving hinder
implementation. Lack of motivation at all levels of the organization will hinder the required
continual efforts. Finally, leadership’s lack of focus and commitment will prevent the efforts
from moving forward.
Technical Knowledge and Skills
Successful implementation of Lean requires an organization to apply ever-changing tools
and techniques at all levels properly. Lean literature has predominantly focused on the academic
30

study of tools and techniques. However, Cusumano et al. (2021) recognized the literature focus
on the technical aspects had created confusion as the tools have evolved and, when implemented
incorrectly, may cause catastrophic results. Evolving tools and techniques confuse and make
understanding difficult (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014; Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). Failure to
understand the Lean techniques at all levels of the organization will hamper implementation
efforts.
In addition to the tools and techniques, a standard process for leaders to use during
implementation is lacking. Leaders face different issues and challenges at each implementation
stage, before, during, and after. Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) identified the absence of a standard
implementation process has negatively impacted implementation success. However, not a
comprehensive implementation process, Jadhav et al. (2014) recognized that initiating Lean
practices before establishing stability leads to failure. A leader’s lack of knowledge and skills
impacts the implementation of Lean.
Motivation
Lean implementation includes the transition from existing methods to Lean methods as
well as the sustainment of Lean. Failure to recognize that Lean is both a transformational change
and an ongoing iterative change impacts implementation and sustainment. Motivational barriers
impacting successful implementation include a lack of persistence resulting in organizations
abandoning Lean (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014; Funston, 2013). Organizational leaders need to
commit to not only the initial transition to Lean but also the continual use of Lean. Once
implemented, Hopp and Spearman (2021) acknowledged Lean is an iterative, continuous process
that requires persistence and continual efforts. Lean implementers need patience to realize the
full impact of Lean. Further, Yamamoto et al. (2019) pointed out that organizations frequently
31

abandon Lean initiatives when efforts do not quickly achieve significant results. Organizational
members fail to grasp that Lean is a continuous process and never complete, resulting in halted
efforts.
Resistance to change at all levels can impact the transition to Lean. In literature reviews,
both Ferenhof et al. (2018) and Jadhav et al. (2014) identified employee resistance and worker
attitudes as motivational barriers. Additionally, Ferenhof et al. suggested reward systems,
empowerment, involvement, effective communication, training, and management support
address employee resistance. Middle management’s commitment is crucial because they impact
their subordinate motivation. In a study of 178 Dutch organizations, van Assen (2018) identified
essential management behaviors, including communication and encouragement. Middle
management may be the most impacted group as their role transitions from daily process
management to people development. Poksinska et al. (2013) acknowledged the significant
impact on management roles in a study including interviews, observations, and document
reviews of five successful Lean organizations. Motivation at all levels of the organization is
essential. Leaders’ motivation is critical due to their contributions and impact on others in the
organization.
Leadership
Various studies have illustrated the importance of leadership’s actions and behaviors in
implementing Lean. In a literature review, Jadhav et al. (2014) classified the barriers in terms of
frequency in articles. Five of the top seven issues were related to leadership influences, including
lack of financial resources, management commitment, poor leadership, management resistance,
and ineffective communications. Further, van Assen (2018) showed that management actions
32

affected Lean and the level of process improvement achieved. A leader’s actions positively and
negatively affect the implementation of Lean.
An over-emphasis on tools and techniques by leaders will inhibit the implementation of
Lean. Cusumano et al. (2021) and Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) recognized that focusing solely
on tools and practice rather than Lean thinking impeded implementation. In a case study of Lean
in an office environment, Funston (2013) reported applying Lean tools without consideration of
the necessary management systems negatively impacted success. Limiting the implementation to
tools and techniques without regard to other elements will adversely affect the implementation of
Lean.
Leadership’s failure to recognize the transition to Lean as an organizational and culture
change hinders implementation efforts. Netland (2016) identified leadership’s commitment and
involvement as the crucial soft success factors for Lean, including communicating the plan and
explaining to employees why Lean is needed. Insufficient resources due to competing priorities
will impact implementation efforts. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) identified simultaneously
implementing multiple programs will negatively impact Lean success. A rigid organization
structure will prevent collaboration across functions. Further, Hadid and Mansouri acknowledged
a strict, hierarchical management structure hinders implementation by restricting collaborative
efforts. A leader’s acknowledgment of the impact on the organization is essential to assist in
implementing Lean.
Administrative Unique Barriers
Administrative areas offer unique challenges in the implementation of Lean.
Administrative processes are difficult to observe, making waste identification challenging. In
manufacturing, a Lean practitioner can track physical product movement visually; however, in
33

administration, observing processes, which are often intellectual, presents challenges (Stapleton
et al., 2009). The complexity of Lean implementation increases with process variation and lack
of process repetition. Hadid and Mansouri (2014) identified process variation due to lack of
repetition impacted the successful implementation of Lean. Administrative process flows are
often heterogeneous due to customization to meet unpredictable and changing customer needs.
Variable process flows add to complexity (Stapleton et al., 2009). Lean’s implementation is more
challenging due to invisible, complex processes.
The study of the utilization of Lean in administrative areas is relatively new; the literature
lacks consensus on a consistent approach. Lean literature focused on administrative areas has
grown since its initial introduction in the mid-1990s (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014), with recognition
of an expansion period of literature from 2000 to 2005 (Bhamu & Sangwan, 2014; Stone, 2012).
Due to the lack of rigorous study, implementation guidance lacks scientific support. Lameijer et
al. (2021) posited that the lack of scientifically proven implementation guidance resulted in a
high failure rate. The researchers identified 27 different improvement models discussed in
literature. The absence of an established implementation method of Lean in administrative areas
has increased the difficulty of implementation.
Lean as an Organizational Change
Transition to Lean is an example of an organizational change impacting all levels of an
organization. Burke-Litwin provided a model of organizational performance and change, which
described the influence of organizational variables as change cascades through an organization.
A distinctive characteristic of this model is the differentiation of transformational and
transactional elements at various levels of the organization, from top leadership to management
34

to staff. The Burke-Litwin model provides a lens to view an organization’s transition to Lean,
particularly the middle manager’s role in the implementation success.
Burke-Litwin Model
In 1992 W. Warner Burke and George H. Litwin presented a model to view an
organization’s function and organizational change. This model represented a causal framework
of organizational elements critical to successful change. It also describes the impacts of
leadership and management, including the influences on culture, climate, systems, and processes.
Leadership support and middle management engagement are essential for the successful
implementation of Lean, leading to this study using the Burke-Litwin model as a theoretical
framework.
Overview of the Burke-Litwin Model
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change considers an
organization’s ability to implement and sustain change through the influence of 12 elements at
various levels of an organization. Figure 1 provides a visual overview. The model arranges the
elements indicating a cascade of change through the organization, the impact level of each
element, and the relationships between the elements. The model is bookended with the external
environment, initiating the change, at one end and individual and organizational performance,
the results of the change at the other end. Through a feedback loop, the model recognizes that
change is continuous.

35

Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change

Note. The transformational elements are indicated by the light grey shading while the
transactional elements are indicated by the darker red shading. From Organization Development:
A Process of Learning and Changing, by W. Warner Burke and Debra A. Noumair, 2015, p. 167.
Copyright 2015 by Pearson.

Features of the model that help to distinguish it from other models include segregation of
culture from climate; separation of transformational and transactional elements; bidirectional
influence among the elements; and clarification between leadership, management, and
individuals. Burke (2018) described transformational change as originating from an external
36

influence causing a large-scale impact throughout the organization requiring new behaviors. The
transformational elements of the model include external environment, leadership, organizational
culture, and mission and strategy (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Transactional changes are aligned
with daily continuous improvement activities and represent small, incremental changes (Burke,
2018). The transactional elements include, at the organizational level, management practices,
systems (policies and procedures), structure, work unit climate, and at the individual level,
motivation; task requirements and individual skills/abilities, and individual needs and values
(Burke & Litwin, 1992). Bidirectional arrows between elements represent influence between
elements. Burke (2018) explained the bidirectional arrows indicate that a change in one element
will ultimately impact all the other elements. Culture and climate describe how the organization
functions from various perspectives. Shinn (2001) explained that culture encompasses the beliefs
and values that guide the activities within an organization, reflected by the organizational
culture, systems (policies and procedures), and individual needs and values elements. Cultural
elements at each level of the organization, leadership, middle management, and individual
indicate that culture is influenced by all members within the organization. On the other hand,
climate is how employees feel about working together. Climate is represented in the model by
work unit climate, structure, motivation, and tasks requirements and individual skills/abilities
elements. Burke and Litwin (1992) linked Culture to transformation and Climate to transactions.
Later, Burke (2018) indicated that comprehending this difference is key to understanding
organizational change. The final distinguishing characteristic is the separation of leadership,
management, and individual elements. Although job levels within an organization often
represent these terms, the model focused on qualities of behaviors and practices rather than job
37

titles. Burke-Litwin’s model appears complex and detailed at first glance; however, grasping the
clusters of elements promotes understanding.
Limitations of the Burke-Litwin Model
Each organizational change has unique elements to the extent that no one change model
applies to all organizational changes. In a review of five change models, Galli (2018) concluded
that each model had advantages and disadvantages, necessitating a leader to select the
appropriate model for impending changes. After introducing the Burke-Litwin model, Burke
later reviewed several limitations of the model. Burke (2018) acknowledged that the Burke-
Litwin model failed to address eight important areas needing further study. Areas of particular
interest included challenges encountered during the change process; leader impacts such as
personality, self-awareness, and ability to influence; rewards including incentives and intrinsic
motivation; and training content and learning formats.
Critics have identified the age and structure as concerns with the Burke-Litwin model.
Spangenberg and Theron (2013) identified two primary problems with the Burke-Litwin model.
First, Burke and Litwin have not updated the model since 1992 to reflect advances in
understanding organizational change. Second, the model layout was misaligned and suggested
vertically distinguishing strategic, management, and structural elements. The researchers
proposed realignment by (a) moving work unit climate under organizational culture, (b) moving
systems (policies and procedures) under structure, and (c) repositioning external environment to
eliminate the suggestion of a substantial influence on the change. Improving the vertical
alignment of the elements would update the Burke-Litwin model.
38

Each change model provides a unique lens to review an organizational change. After
grasping the details of a change, leaders benefit from selecting an appropriate model. Although
the Burke-Litwin model is over 30 years old, it remains applicable today.
Burke-Litwin ’s Applicability in Lean
Implementing Lean in an organization represents both transformational and transactional
leader behaviors depending on the stage of the change. A leader’s responsibilities and behaviors
change when transitioning to Lean. Netland et al. (2020) recognized changes needed in leaders in
their behaviors and ways of interacting with employees as the organization transitions to Lean.
When beginning a transition to Lean, transformational practices boost success. In a collection of
surveys, van Rossum et al. (2016) identified a positive relationship between transformational
leadership practices and Lean implementation success. As the implementation progresses, the
focus shifts from transformational to transactional behaviors. Aij et al. (2015) recognized that
Lean includes transformational change when initially implemented, followed by transactional or
small iterative changes once in place. As the transition to Lean progress, the leader’s behaviors
adjust.
Lean is an enterprise-wide approach that impacts the organization and the individuals
within the organization. The transition to Lean affects all members of an organization. Through a
study of the relationship between culture and successful Lean implementation, Loyd et al. (2020)
identified Lean creates a culture where every employee is a problem-solver. Employees gain
problem-solving skills from the upper level and more experienced members through coaching
and development. Lean represents change beyond procedural modifications. Cusumano et al.
(2021) reiterated the need to incorporate behavioral and cultural changes when applying Lean
39

thinking and practice. When implementing Lean, various levels of the organization need to adopt
new leadership approaches, and organizations often need to change their culture.
The Burke-Litwin model has endured several decades and continues to be relevant today.
The creation of the Burke-Litwin Organizational Assessment Survey allowed organizations to
measure their organization in terms of the model elements. Stone (2015) confirmed the survey’s
reliability and validity, supporting the sound theory of the model. Using a mixed methods
research study, Olivier (2017) showed Burke-Litwin’s model helpful in identifying the strengths
and development areas of an organization’s ability to handle change. The Burke-Litwin model
has withstood the test of time and is still applicable in the present day.
Leader’s Role in Facilitating Organizational Change
Regardless of job title, leaders play a critical role in organizational change. In a review of
five popular change management models, Galli (2018) recognized all the models have a role for
the leader and follow similar processes, including identifying the need to change, determining
the details of the change, establishing the approach to the change, implementing the change, and
monitoring. Leaders are responsible for ensuring adequate planning before implementing an
organizational change. During planning, Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) recognized the
importance of ensuring the selected change model aligns with the change type. Further, Errida
and Lotfi (2021) demonstrated that failure to clarify the vision and communicate effectively
impacts organizational change success. During the implementation, leaders apply project
management skills and monitor the transition to ensure the organization stays aligned with the
objectives. In a summary paper, Smits and Bowden (2015) emphasized various skills leaders
need during implementation, including strategic process management and problem-solving.
40

Leaders are in a position to impact organizational change success during planning and
implementation.
Leaders also need to identify and eliminate barriers to successfully implementing
organizational changes. Smits and Bowden (2015) listed several organizational barriers when
managing organizational change, including inadequate resources, lack of persistence, and
oppositional cultures. Lack of leadership skills will also negatively impact organizational
changes. In a literature review, Errida and Lotfi (2021) identified 12 categories with 77
subfactors of leader elements affecting organizational change. Through a case study, Errida and
Lotfi identified that lack of a clear vision, failure to understand the change, and ineffective
communication with subordinates were related to organizational change failure. A leader needs
awareness of barriers to support successful changes.
Leaders influence others during organizational changes through effective communication,
interpersonal skills, and motivation. A leader’s grasp of the change, awareness of the value, and
clear explanation to others support employee commitment to the change initiative (Onyeneke &
Abe, 2021). In a study including interviews of successful change leaders, Latham (2013)
acknowledged leader behaviors included serving as a role model, respecting others in the
organization, collaborating at all levels, and encouraging two-way communication. On the other
hand, Alhaqbani et al. (2016) identified the negative impact when middle management is not
involved or committed to change initiatives. The researchers surveyed and interviewed members
of an organization and documented reduced problem-solving, low employee involvement in
improvement activities, and low employee trust linked to the lack of middle management
commitment. Leaders support organizational change by building relationships and promoting
employee support for the change.
41

In organizational changes, leaders are critical. Based on a leader’s position in the
organization, they are responsible for planning and executing changes. When facing barriers,
leaders need to identify and resolve the issue quickly. Finally, leaders motivate others within the
organization to support the change. A leader’s behaviors and actions are crucial to the success of
an organizational change.
Leader’s Role in Transitioning to Lean
In addition to traditional leadership roles in organizational change, Lean leaders have
increased burdens. The leader’s role in Lean includes balancing organizational leadership,
subordinate development, and process or work management, simultaneously applying both
transformational and transactional behaviors. Poksinska et al. (2013) explained during the
implementation of Lean, leaders increase their understanding of Lean, grow their ability to coach
and develop others, and develop their ability to move the organization toward the goal of zero
waste.
Leader behaviors vary depending on the phase of implementation and the level in the
organization. Behaviors differ depending on the stage of Lean implementation. Tortorella and
Fogliatto (2017) suggested that as an organization matures in implementing Lean, a leadership
shift occurs from directing to coaching as members of the organization gain knowledge and skills
in Lean. Individual behaviors will also vary depending on their level in the organization.
Tortorella and Fogliatto further explained leadership styles at first-line supervisor levels began
with coaching and supporting with a shift to coaching and directing; area leaders’ styles evolved
from directing and coaching to supporting, and executives moved from directing and coaching to
supporting and delegating. As subordinate skills developed, the leadership styles of the next level
shifted to support worker autonomy.
42

Several researchers have focused on the unique requirements of middle management in
Lean organizations. Middle management represents the group of individuals between the top
level of an organization and the front-line managers. Netland et al. (2020) indicated that middle
management responsibilities include day-to-day operations, actions necessary to accomplish
goals set by executives, and support of subordinates. Further, Netland et al. suggested that
middle managers are crucial in communication as they translate upper management’s direction to
lower levels’ actions. Additionally, Reynders et al. (2022) recognized middle management
develops and maintains relationships throughout the organization, vertically, up and down, and
horizontally, across the organization. Middle management’s position in the organization,
between executives and staff, necessitates strategic, technical, and interpersonal skills and
capabilities.
Middle management involvement is critical to the success of Lean implementation. In a
mixed methods study, Fryer et al. (2018) showed a positive relationship between middle
management commitment and success of continuous improvement. Failure to include middle
management in Lean change initiatives impacts success. In a literature review of middle
management’s role in implementing and sustaining Lean, Reynders et al. (2022) recognized
middle managers as an intermediatory between upper and lower levels during policy
establishment and implementation.
Middle management is responsible for developing subordinates. Specific management
actions include developing employees’ problem-solving skills through coaching (Loyd et al.,
2020). Yamamoto et al. (2019) mentioned leaders should coach by asking questions,
encouraging deep reflection, and confessing to not having all the answers. Lean acknowledges
the employee’s expertise in job knowledge through inclusion during problem-solving activities
43

(Loyd et al., 2020; Manos et al., 2006). For example, Stapleton et al. (2009) suggested removing
job titles during improvement events so all participants considered each other as equals. Staff
members must have skills to maintain Lean, including how the tools and techniques work
(Manos et al., 2006). In a review of 88 publications, Solaimani et al. (2019) identified
requirements for Lean coaching, including relationship building through gaining trust and
respect, active observation of work, and technical expertise in Lean practices such as process
visualization, waste identification, and problem-solving. The Lean coach’s goal is to help
employees become problem solvers by accumulating wisdom gained through experience.
Leaders, at all levels of the organization, are critical to the success of Lean. Middle management,
in particular, has a complex role that includes a combination of technical and interpersonal
actions, including overseeing the change initiative, developing subordinates, building
relationships, and monitoring day-to-day activities.
Conceptual Framework
This study focuses on understanding leader behaviors, from the leader’s perspective, that
facilitate successful implementation and sustainment of Lean in administrative areas. The study
concentrates on middle management. Middle management holds a unique position in
implementing organizational changes. Figure 2 illustrates this position between upper
management or executives and staff level, often serving as a conduit of direction and feedback.
The colors in the model’s visual representation denote the different levels in the organization.
Red indicates the executive level, and blue indicates the staff level. The framework shows the
middle manager in purple, a combination of red and blue, illustrating the blending of upper
management and staff. Middle manager behaviors are influenced by their knowledge and
experiences, as shown on the model’s left side. Middle managers use these behaviors to interpret
44

and translate upper management’s vision and strategy for the organization into structure,
systems, policies, and procedures and, ultimately, into work processes that staff members follow
to achieve organizational objectives. The middle manager also collects feedback from staff,
monitors performance, and escalates to upper management as needed, again serving as a conduit
and ensuring the message is understandable for the intended audience. Middle management’s
experience and knowledge influence the behaviors used when providing direction to
subordinates and feedback to upper management.

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

45

Literature describes the position of middle management as a bridge, an intermediary, or a
vortex between executives and staff. The middle manager’s behaviors support the translation and
interpretation of direction and feedback as information moves through the organization. Due to
this unique position in the organization, middle managers utilize both transformational and
transactional leadership behaviors. The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and
Change describes the leadership of organizational change as using a transformational leadership
style, while management of the detailed implementation is more transactional (Burke, 2018).
This study seeks to understand the middle manager behaviors and experiences that facilitate the
successful organizational change to Lean management.
Conclusion
The study and application of Lean have evolved over the past 4 decades (Ferenhof et al.,
2018; Makwana & Patange, 2021; Psomas & Antony, 2019; Samuel et al., 2015). Organizations
adopting Lean commit to an organizational change initiative and daily Lean operations (Hopp &
Spearman, 2021). Leaders have a significant role in planning and implementing organizational
changes (Smits & Bowden, 2015). When implementing Lean as an organizational change,
middle management support and involvement are critical (Engle et al., 2017; Fryer et al., 2018;
Holmemo & Ingvaldsen, 2016; Netland, 2016; Reynders et al., 2022). Additionally, Lean
impacts middle management’s role during the implementation and sustainment of Lean
(Ferenhof et al., 2018; Solaimani et al., 2019; Tortorella & Fogliatto, 2017). Adopting Lean in
administrative areas increases the challenges that an organization needs to overcome (Chiarini,
2013; Hadid et al., 2016). As leaders, middle management’s continual support and engagement
are crucial to implementing and sustaining Lean in administrative areas.
46

Chapter Three: Methodology
This qualitative study sought to understand, from a leader’s perspective, how leaders,
specifically middle management, overcome barrier during the implementation and sustainment
of Lean in administrative areas. Chapter Two reviewed the history of Lean in literature, the
barriers faced in implementation, middle management’s unique role in Lean organizations, and
the framework used in this study. This chapter begins with a review of the research questions
followed by an overview of the methodology used in the study. A summary of each data source
(interviews and document analysis) follows. Finally, reviews of credibility and trustworthiness,
ethics, and limitations and delimitations close the chapter.
Research Questions
The research questions focused on understanding leader’s behaviors and experiences in
implementing Lean in administrative areas. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What is the leader’s experience when implementing Lean in administrative areas?
2. How do leaders perceive the organizational culture supports or hinders the
implementation of Lean in administrative areas?
3. What behaviors do leaders value for overcoming barriers encountered while
implementing Lean in administrative areas?
Overview of Methodology
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined research as a systematic process to learn more about
something than we previously knew. This study used a qualitative research method, including
phenomenological interviews and document analysis as data sources. Duke and Martin (2011)
advised a logical link between research questions and research design to promote high-quality
research. This study used qualitative methods to examine an individual’s personal experience.
47

Qualitative research supports a collection of a depth of information related to a topic and allows
themes to emerge during the research (Morgan, 2014). Further, Merriam and Tisdell described an
interview as a structured conversation in which the researcher gathers data from participants to
support a research study. Finally, Creswell and Creswell (2018) explained a phenomenological
study considers an individual’s experiences and how they interpret those experiences.
The interviews focused on the lived experiences of middle managers from the perspective
of the three research questions. Additionally, document analysis supplemented interview data by
reviewing available documents describing middle managers’ desired behaviors and experiences
within the studied organization. Documents are created without researcher intervention, often for
another purpose; however, documents can verify or corroborate finding from other sources
(Bowen, 2009). Table 2 summarizes the relationship between the research questions and the data
sources. Multiple data sources, including interviews and document analysis, provide a deeper
understanding leader behaviors and experiences related to Lean.

48

Table 2
Data Sources
Research questions Interviews Document analysis
What is the leader’s
experience when
implementing Lean in
administrative areas?

X X
How do leaders perceive the
organizational culture
supports or hinders the
implementation of Lean in
administrative areas?

X X
What behaviors do leaders
value for overcoming
barriers encountered while
implementing Lean in
administrative areas?
X

The Researcher
In qualitative studies, the researcher serves as the instrument for data collection. Creswell
and Creswell (2018) recognized the researcher’s role and the need to reflect on their biases. My
salient identity characteristics align with my interview candidates, including a member of the
organization and a successful implementer of Lean in administrative areas. However, I also have
identity characteristics that reflect my position of power that I addressed. Burkholder et al.
(2019) cautioned that interview bias influences the question selection, probe usage, and may
impact the researcher’s decision of what information is relevant. As the researcher, I understood
and addressed my biases’ impact on this study.
49

As a person who identified with my interview participants, I acknowledged and
understood my potential biases to ensure the credibility of the data. I have been a Lean
practitioner for over 30 years, achieved success, and encountered obstacles I could not overcome.
I believe Lean provides a practical approach to leading an organization in the constant pursuit of
improvement through waste reduction. My confidence in Lean guided me to study how others
have achieved success through their behaviors.
As an executive at DGI, I was in a position of power in relation to some of my interview
participants. My position of power was enhanced as a White, educated employee with several
years of experience in manufacturing at DGI. Cooper (2017) explained the intersectionality of an
individual’s social identities impacts the position of privilege and oppression. All members in my
direct line of supervision were excluded as interview participants to reduce the impact of my
position of power. Furthermore, I reassured participants by reminding them that I will not use the
information gathered in the interview to judge or evaluate their performance.
In addition to recognizing and understanding my biases arising from my identities and
experiences, I used several other approaches to mitigate the impact on my research. Examining
my biases and assumptions, including my position, in relation to the interviewee population,
before beginning a study is recommended (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, Creswell and
Creswell (2018) suggested reflecting on one’s personal experiences during the research process
can be facilitated through personal notes on how experiences potentially influence the
interpretation of data. Intentional reflection before, during, and after each interview promoted
awareness of biases. Additionally, Bowen (2009) suggested a systematic approach to document
analysis that included an evaluation of the relevance to the research questions and grasping each
document’s original purpose and intent. Further, each document was considered independently
50

for its significance to the study. Through established protocols for interviews and document
analysis, my focus was on analyzing data relevant to my research.
Data Source: Interviews
This study utilized semi-structured, phenomenological interviews to explore the problem
of practice. Aliyu et al. (2015) explained phenomenology provides a first-person account of an
experience. The interviews used video conference software. During the interview, the
participants shared their personal experiences implementing Lean in administrative areas by
responding to predetermined questions.
Interviews supported data gathering in response to all three research questions. A semi-
structured interview format allowed flexibility and a comfortable, conversational exchange
between the participant and the interviewer (Patton, 2002). The interviews used intentionally
designed interview questions to understand the leader’s experience and behaviors during the
transition and sustainment of Lean. Middle management faces unique challenges as their role
shifts from predominately process management to people development. Interview questions also
explored the leader’s perception of the organizational culture’s support or hindrance when
implementing Lean. As suggested by Johnson and Christensen (2015), probes helped to clarify
or gather additional information as needed.
Participants
The study used a purposeful sample method to choose participants. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) described a purposeful sample as a group that meets unique attributes. The interview
participants met the following criteria current DGI employees, middle management level,
responsible for an administrative area, and proficient in implementing Lean.
51

Participation criteria determined a candidate’s eligibility to participate in the interviews.
Middle management included members at least two levels above staff level and did not report
directly to the CEO (Reynders et al., 2022). Administrative area responsibilities included any
department that does not manufacture, repetitively produce a physical product, or directly
supports a manufacturing process, such as parts conveyance, inspection, or product evaluation.
Interview candidate selection used recommendations from DGI’s Lean Practice Group
executives to determine Lean proficiency. DGI’s Lean Practice Group’s primary mission is to
share Lean knowledge throughout the organization, further improving productivity. Gaining
consensus from at least two experts increased the reliability of the participant selection.
The goal was to interview 10 to 12 participants. The ideal sample size allows a researcher
to address the research questions and reach the point of data saturation (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). At this stage, the interview responses become repetitive and do not yield new insights.
Participant eligibility and selection criteria provided an ideal sample.
Data Collection Procedures
An overall interview protocol strengthened a semi-structured interview method. The
protocol included an introduction, one opening question, 12 content questions with probes, and a
closing. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) recommended building rapport at the start of an interview.
The interviews opened with a simple, conversational question focusing on the interviewee’s
work experience. The content question sequence, wording, and probes usage remained flexible,
as Johnson and Christensen (2015) suggested. Further, Johnson and Christensen indicated that
probes serve to clarify responses and gain additional information. A documented protocol
allowed appropriate consistency and thoroughness throughout the interview data collection
process.
52

A semi-structured format made the interviews more conversational (Patton, 2002). The
12 content questions included experience, opinion, feeling, and behavior. This variation
promoted understanding of leader experience considering different perspectives (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002). Each content question had potential probes that assisted in
clarification or soliciting additional information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The closing
statement included asking the participant if there were any other comments or information to
add, as suggested by Patton (2002). The interview protocol was comprehensive yet remained
flexible to accommodate each interview.
Back to back, consecutive interview times were avoided. The gap between interviews
allowed reflection on the interview questions and protocols based on each experience.
Additionally, scheduling the interviews provided time for immediate documentation of
observations. Patton (2002) recommended recording observations as soon as possible upon
completion of each interview to prevent omission and confusion. Each interview was planned for
60 minutes and included a review of the Information Sheet for Exempt Research before the
interview began.
The interviews used Microsoft Teams video conferencing. With the participant’s
permission, Microsoft Teams, and a handheld voice recorder, as a backup method, were used to
record the interview (Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). The Microsoft Teams transcription function
transcribed the interview recording into a Microsoft Word document. Finally, a simultaneous
review of the transcript and interview recording confirmed the transcription accuracy.
Instrumentation
An interview protocol guided the interviews. Johnson and Christensen (2015) suggested
the interview guide approach, which provides a structure to ensure all research questions are
53

addressed yet allows flexibility in the sequence, wording, and use of questions. Creswell and
Creswell (2018) described the contents of an interview protocol, including basic interview
information, introduction, opening rapport-building questions, content questions, probes, and
closing. The interview protocol for this study addressed each of these areas.
The content questions on the interview protocol included an assortment of types,
including experience, behavior, opinion, value, and feelings. Patton (2002) suggested reviewing
the question formats to promote open-ended, neutrality, and clarity. Two previous DGI
employees with significant knowledge of Lean reviewed the interview questions. A variety of
question types and robust question formats solicited narratives of experiences and behaviors
from participants related to Lean implementation and sustainment in administrative areas.
Appendix A provides the interview protocol for this study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis of the semi-structured interview responses was qualitative. Creswell and
Creswell (2018) recommended data analysis begin as soon as data collection commences.
Simultaneous analysis and collection allowed early identification of themes. Elliott (2018)
described coding as the process of analyzing qualitative data by breaking apart and categorizing
small pieces of data and then merging them to create new understanding. Elliott further
suggested multiple stages of coding, each delving into greater detail. The research questions,
conceptual framework, and other concepts that emerged during the interviews guided the themes
in coding. The data analysis began with a priori codes, developed from the research questions,
and continue with emergent codes, identified through the coding process, and in vivo codes,
characterized as the participant’s own words (Elliot, 2018). The software program, Atlas.ti, aided
in coding the interview transcripts.
54

Credibility and Trustworthiness
For this dissertation study, member checking, documentation of procedures, and
respondent validation increased credibility and trustworthiness. Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
recommended having participants review the summary of the findings to ensure their information
was captured and reported correctly. Creswell and Creswell (2018) referred to this practice as
member checking and can include follow-up interviews in which participants can comment on
the findings. This study used a prepared, detailed description of the interview protocol and
procedures (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol included confirmation of
transcripts and validation that coding meanings have not shifted (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Finally, the credibility of the interviews was increased by confirming successful behaviors
identified during the interviews align with company values through analyzing organizational
documents (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Source: Document Analysis
This study utilized document analysis upon completion of the interview portion of the
study. A systematic review of information, conducted during the document analysis,
supplemented the interview data. Bowen (2009) suggested document analysis is helpful in
corroborating data from other sources, reducing bias, and improving credibility.
The analysis included publicly available documents through DGI’s website, including job
postings, philosophical statements, and company value statements. Additionally, this study
included a review of internal documents, including performance expectations at various levels,
with permission from DGI. This study analyzed each data source independently and collectively
to find common and unique themes for comparison to themes identified from interview data.
55

Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures helped ensure the researcher gathered all relevant data.
Documents considered for this study focused on the organization’s stated desired experiences
and behaviors of middle management. Bowen (2009) recommended evaluating each document
considering its original purpose, the intended audience, and relevance to the research questions.
Job postings for middle management positions in administrative areas were collected by
confirming DGI’s career website for three separate weeks from December 2022 through January
2023. A search of DGI’s public website identified documents pertinent to this study. The final
document source included internal documents that describe desired behaviors at each level of the
organization.
Additionally, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) advised researchers to ensure the research
questions guide document identification. This study used a Document Analysis Protocol that
detailed the purpose of each document type and the relationship to the research questions.
Document collection procedures and document analysis protocol ensured a comprehensive
collection of available, applicable documents for the study.
Data Analysis
Bowen (2009) suggested a methodical approach to document analysis, including
skimming, reading, interpreting, and analyzing. Skimming determined the relevance of the
document to the study. Reading and interpreting allowed for the initial examination and
identification of patterns. Finally, during analysis, coding and categorization of data were
performed. Theme comparison helped identify similarities and discrepancies with interview
findings.
56

Ethics
Researchers are bound by a code of ethics that promotes credibility and trustworthiness,
and protects the participants from harm. Creswell and Creswell (2018) presented ethical issues a
researcher faces before, during, and after a study. Prior to the study, the researchers recommend
reviewing appropriate institutional review board (IRB) requirements and gaining approval before
commencing the study. Glesne (2011) explained that IRB reviews ensure study participants are
protected. The University of Southern California (USC) IRB confirmed protocols and procedures
ensured participants willingly engage in the study, were provided the opportunity to withdraw at
any time, and assured any risks were either eliminated or outweighed by the benefits. The USC
IRB’s requirements guided this study, including seeking approval prior to initiating data
collection.
Confidentiality was an essential ethical consideration for this study. Confidentiality
included both protecting identities and protecting data. The pseudonym Durable Goods Inc.
shielded the organization’s identity. Additionally, the study only used direct quotations from
interview participants or documents that did not include details that would identify the
organization. Permission to conduct the study was provided by the organization’s Ethics Officer
from the Compliance and Ethics Office before the study began.
In addition to protecting the organization’s identity, this study used pseudonyms for each
participant’s identity to prevent identification. Pseudonyms provided unique identifiers for each
interview transcript while maintaining the participant’s confidentiality. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) suggested that a study avoids collecting irrelevant demographic information. The
exclusion of personal data further protected confidentiality. Finally, each participant received a
copy of the Information Sheet for Exempt Research outlining their voluntary participation,
57

participation can be stopped at any point, details of their participation, and assurance of
confidentiality.
Data, including recordings, transcripts, and notes, were housed on a password protected
laptop. Additionally, each interview transcript had a unique password. Patton (2002)
recommended transcribing interview recordings as soon as possible. Deletion of each original
interview recording occurred after transcription and verification was completed. Finally, deletion
of all transcription data happened once the study was complete, and data was no longer needed.
Protection of data files while in use and deletion upon completion of use safeguarded
confidentiality.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined credibility as how the research findings reflect
reality through accurate interpretations. To enhance the study’s credibility, participants were
given the opportunity confirm transcripts, quotations, and findings (Glesne, 2011). In addition,
the organization, DGI, received a copy of the final study. For this study, member checking
ensured proper interpretation of participants’ inputs. Finally, the interview questions have
undergone peer review for structure, format, and content.
Summary
This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews and document analysis to
understand how a leader’s behavior impacts Lean implementation and sustainment in
administrative areas. Robust protocols, including alignment to the research questions,
confidentiality, and ethics, helped ensure the data collection brought value to the study (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). Multiple data sources enhanced the credibility of the study.
.
58

Chapter Four: Findings
This study aimed to understand, from a leader’s perspective, overcoming barriers
encountered while implementing Lean. This chapter focuses on the qualitative approach using
interviews and document analysis by describing the data using a conceptual framework based on
Burke Litwin’s model of organizational performance and change. Chapter Four begins by
examining participants’ experiences learning and teaching Lean, establishing their foundational
knowledge. An exploration of organizational culture follows to identify characteristics that
support Lean and characteristics that inhibit Lean. Finally, this chapter reviews strategies leaders
employed to mitigate the barriers they encountered while implementing Lean.
Participants
The purposefully sampled participants for this study included DGI middle managers with
demonstrated success in Lean implementation in an administrative area. The interviews took
place in December 2022. A minimum of two recommendations from executives in DGI’s Lean
Practice Group confirmed participants’ success in Lean implementation. Pseudonyms were
assigned to each participant to protect their confidentiality and promote open and honest sharing
of each participant’s experience. Table 3 summarizes the interview participants, including the
pseudonym used, years employed at DGI, methods used to learn Lean, and work experience
within DGI. Lean Learning Methods are differentiated by school, including formal degree
education and external programs such as Six Sigma Black Belt; classroom, including traditional
in-person and eLearning classes conducted by DGI; on the job, indicating a role with consistent
responsibilities for process improvement, waste elimination, or continuous improvement guided
by a supervisor or other coach; and immersion indicating a full-time commitment to Lean
practices including short-term which is less than or equal to two years and long-term which is
59

more than 2 years. Work Experience includes manufacturing, including direct production of a
good or directly related to manufacturing, such as parts conveyance or in-line inspection;
manufacturing support, including any function co-located at a manufacturing facility; and
administration, including all other functions.

60

Table 3
Participants: Pseudonym, Years at DGI, Lean Learning Method, Work Experience
Pseudonym Years at DGI Lean learning method Work experience
Alex 10–19 years On the job
Long-term immersive
Manufacturing support
Blake 20–29 years On the job
Long-term immersive
Manufacturing support
Chris 10–19 years School
On the job
Long-term immersive
Manufacturing support
Drew 30–39 years Classroom
Short-term immersive
Administration
Evan 10–19 years On the job
Short-term immersive
Administration
Francis 20–29 years School
On the job
Short-term immersive
Manufacturing support
Gene 31–39 years Classroom
Short-term immersive
Administration
Jordan 10–19 years Classroom Administration
Leslie 30–39 years Classroom
On the job
Administration
Morgan 10–19 years School
Classroom
On the job
Manufacturing support
Pat 30–39 years On the Job Manufacturing and
Manufacturing Support
Robin 20–29 years Short-term Immersive Administration
Shannon 10–19 years School
On the Job
Manufacturing Support &
Administration

61

Interview Data Collection and Analysis
Semi-structured interviews elicited the participant’s individual experiences in
implementing Lean in administrative areas. The DGI Human Resources department sent
invitations to 17 potential participants. The study included interviews with 13 participants; three
did not respond to the invitation, and one declined to participate. Participants’ insights focus on
barriers encountered, effective and ineffective behaviors, and cultural impact. Three key a priori
codes were developed from the conceptual framework and the research question: Approaches to
Learning and Coaching, Leader Behaviors Employed and Observed, and Supporting and
Inhibiting Cultural Impact. Open coding of the participants’ responses yielded subthemes and
areas of tension. The study’s findings are presented in sections addressing each research
question.
Document Collection and Analysis
Document collection included a collection of publicly available documents and one
internal DGI document. The publicly available documents included job postings and references
to the organization’s culture obtained from global and North American websites. The internal
document, accessed with the permission of DGI, summarized the behavior expectations at
various levels of the organization. The document examination commenced once the interview
data analysis was complete. The documents were reviewed to identify areas aligned or diverged
with the interview findings. The findings are incorporated in sections addressing each research
question.
Document collection occurred between December 2022 and January 2023. The job
posting website was searched on four separate occasions for middle management positions in
administration areas. An additional search was conducted after the third search failed to identify
62

any new postings. In total, eight job postings meeting the criteria were located. The global
website review provided documents explaining the global vision, philosophy, and the
organization’s approach to Lean. The North American website provided insights into the
organization’s operations, leadership principles, and mission. Finally, the internal document, the
behavior guide, provided well-defined behavior statements for each competency for various
levels of the organization. The study included document collection and analysis related to leader
behaviors and organizational culture.
Findings for Research Question 1: Leader’s Experience Learning and Coaching
The participant’s shared experiences included how they, themselves, learned Lean and
how they developed others in Lean. The first theme consists of various learning and teaching
experiences. Participants’ learning experiences ranged from quick snip-its shared in daily
conversations to intensive, long-term assignments. Learning often was supplemented by
independent classroom or eLearning instruction; however, the participants overwhelmingly
reported hands-on learning as the most effective method. Questions facilitating learning is the
second theme identified. Participants frequently identified questions as a technique to challenge
and deepen thinking. The final theme is a tailored leadership approach based on the employee’s
current level of understanding and skill. Table 4 provides a summary of themes and subthemes.

63

Table 4
Research Question 1 Subthemes: Learning and Coaching Experience
Themes Subthemes
Learning experiences Administration versus manufacturing
Teaching others
Safe space

Questions Promotion of learning
Types of questions

Tailored approach Experience-based
Scaffolding

Theme 1: Learning Experiences: Learning Teaching Vortex
Each participant’s learning experience was unique. The learning environments ranged
from administrative areas physically distanced from any manufacturing, supportive areas
adjacent to manufacturing, and direct manufacturing locations. Additionally, the learning method
consisted of classroom, eLearning, hands-on, and coaching. Hands-on practice with coaching
provided the most effective learning method. However, hands-on practice often results in failure
or mistakes, necessitating a safe space for members to learn.
Learning in Administration Versus Manufacturing
Transitioning to Lean requires middle managers to learn themselves while teaching
others. However, when Lean practices are already in place, employees learn Lean concepts at the
staff level and are not burdened with teaching others until moving into a leadership role.
Depending on the area of work experience, the learning method and effectiveness varied, with
the least effective being classroom used in administration areas and the most effective being
hands-on with a coach in a manufacturing environment.
64

Lean learning in administration primarily uses a classroom approach for basic concepts.
The limited application of Lean in administration prohibited hands-on training while on the job.
Additionally, many administrative functions do not have easy access to manufacturing daily,
inhibiting hands-on learning availability. Drew, an administration member, shared his learning
progress from administration to manufacturing to practitioner. Early in his career, not only did he
learn in a classroom, but he also taught others “we did [Lean] education . . . I read the book . . . I
also studied how to teach a basic introduction class.” In reflection, Drew added, “we thought we
were amazingly smart, but all we knew was on paper . . . I did not fully understand the
application of those concepts” until allowed to observe in manufacturing. Even with the
opportunity to observe, Drew found, “I still didn’t know, at that time, how to apply it to the
office.” Although the classroom provides explanations of concepts and principles, the learning
remains at a surface level until applied in practice.
Participants with manufacturing support experience worked in an environment with daily
Lean practice, and coaches were readily available. In this environment, classroom teaching was
supplemented with hands-on experience with a coach. Robin described the different methods as
“going from book and theory to application.” Morgan’s experience started in a classroom where
the practices were taught and were followed by coaching where “he [Morgan’s coach] and I
would meet weekly, we would talk about the different steps.” Hands-on experience with
coaching often was the preferred method identified by participants with manufacturing or
manufacturing support experience. Morgan remembered the experience fondly “coaching was
really helpful, [my coach] was good at setting aggressive targets and challenging me when I
thought I couldn’t push something forward, [my coach] helped me, kind of, break through
obstacles.” Francis added that their coach often “modeled” leader behaviors that they later
65

adopted. A review of the internal behavior expectations identified coaching subordinates,
including feedback, provides intentional development. Coaches provided support during hands-
on activities through dialogue, challenge, and support.
Teaching Others, Today ’s Practice
Lean leaders today use a combination of classroom, explanation, hands-on experience,
and coaching to develop others’ Lean skills. A common approach used included an iterative,
cyclical process of providing small chunks of knowledge or information, allowing guided
practice, giving feedback, and returning to more knowledge and information. Ambrose et al.
(2010) recommended breaking down complex topics into smaller increments. An iterative,
cyclical process will enable learners to fully grasp simple concepts before moving to more
complex concepts.
One challenge participants encountered in classroom teaching was the availability of
training materials. “[Lean] is a highly guarded secret . . . you’re not going to find a [Lean] book
anywhere,” shared Leslie. Gene also expressed frustration “information is kept so close to the
vest, and not shared . . . I can’t teach a class because I don’t have access to the material.” Gene
added, “but I do know enough to where I can actually teach some of the basic concepts.”
However, Alex disclosed an explanation for not sharing information indicating that developing
teaching materials supported learning, “you have to really learn it in order to teach it.” The lack
of teaching materials ensures untrained members do not misuse materials; however, it also
frustrates members eager to share their knowledge and constrains organizational learning.
Classroom training introduces Lean principles that serve as a foundation for additional
learning. The primary focus is process design, problem identification, and problem solving.
Various Lean tools, including history and application, are taught in classroom training. The
66

format for the classroom varies from lecture to online virtual learning, depending on the area and
topic. Alex cautioned against “lecture series where it’s just a one-way conversation where you’re
probably retaining a very small percent of it.” The study’s findings determined that an interactive
classroom experience promotes understanding and retention of materials.
The explanation technique is similar to classroom training with the intent of sharing
knowledge; however, it is generally less formal, less content, and often unplanned. Chris referred
to this practice as “educational moments” where “I would sit down with the team and say, today
we’re going to talk about [topic].” Adding, “I might have, like, little lessons throughout the
project.” Gene focused on the duration specifying, “30 minutes in a 3-hour session is too long for
training . . . we cut it down to like 10 minutes and really focused in on an abbreviated version of
the [Lean] skills that we were using.” The participants shared using at-the-moment opportunities
to share knowledge.
Finally, the hands-on experience with coaching provides the employee an opportunity to
try out a skill while receiving feedback. Practicing newly learned skills promotes learning
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark & Estes, 2008). The hands-on experience is not a simulation in a
controlled environment but working on an actual problem in a real work environment.
Additionally, an array of members provides coaching, including upper levels, peers, and lower
levels. Alex stressed the need to “immerse them immediately in this kind of learning
environment” once the employee has established the foundation.
Blake emphasized the value of “working side by side [with] frequent interactions [and]
one-on-one coaching.” Further clarifying, “leaders have to understand the best way of teaching is
teaching through hands-on application; it’s not classroom training; it’s not talking about
something; it’s actually working with people.” Drew highlighted the benefit of “dialogue back
67

and forth learning through doing.” Hands-on application with one-on-one coaching solidifies the
knowledge gained in the classroom.
Coaching can come from the project lead, a supervisor, or a peer and often is not limited
to just one person. Several researchers emphasized the importance of coaching during problem
solving and continuous improvement activities (Lleo et al., 2020; Loyd et al., 2020; Netland et
al., 2020; Poksinska et al., 2013). Coaching can be provided by any member, as shared by Alex
“when you travel, you’re not always with your direct supervisor . . . you’re sort of learning from
whoever is around you.” Adding, “it was really pretty much anybody in the organization I was
learning from.” Coaching frequently benefits both parties. Evan explained various approaches,
including “if they don’t have the experience, I pair them up with somebody” used for beginners
and “I give them those opportunities to be a mentor or a team leader” for more experienced
members. The peer approach provides opportunities for both members to grow further enhancing
organizational learning.
Various approaches, including classroom, explanation, hands-on, and coaching, work
collectively to provide a comprehensive learning environment. Coaching and explanations offer
a foundation of technical elements and philosophies, including background and application.
Hands-on practice allows the learner to apply skills learned in the classroom. Finally, during the
hands-on application, coaching provides feedback to the learner, allowing them to deepen their
knowledge and skills.
Encouraging Learning and Practice: Creating a Safe Space
Hands-on application of a newly learned skill requires a safe space where a member can
experiment without fear of failure. Learning through struggle was identified by Chris “growth
comes from struggle.” However, the struggle often comes with failure, and providing an
68

environment where failure or imperfection is acceptable is critical. Drew recommended, “the
manager has to create that environment that it’s also OK, OK to make mistakes, to do trial and
error.” The internal document leader describing behavior expectations contained ‘create a safe
environment.” further supporting Drew’s comment. Netland et al. (2020) described Lean
practices as frequent experimentation of hypotheses that leads to small, incremental changes
promoting continuous improvement. Recognizing Lean as a collection of trial and error
experiments aids a leader in understanding mistakes, errors, and even failure are possible.
A safe environment also supports other Lean practices, such as problem identification
and reflection. Before a problem can be fixed, it needs to be identified, as expressed by Francis,
“revealing that there’s a shortcoming is actually a good thing, right? Because then you can fix
it.” Research Question 2 discusses the impact of hidden problems, especially when hidden
intentionally.
Evan demonstrated a unique level of humbleness, including exposing their own mistakes.
“Showing those folks that it is OK and that a mistake doesn’t mean you failed, that it just means
you tried. Yeah, I use myself as an example as much as I can.”. The leader creates an
environment where members feel safe exposing their challenges and failures through their
behaviors.
Learning Lean is influenced by the setting, access to manufacturing; the method,
classroom, hands-on, and coaching; and the environment, which is safe to make and share
mistakes. Hands-on application with coaching provided the best opportunity to hone skills.
Additionally, an environment that promotes trial and error and recognizes the risk of failure
supports the overall learning experience. The leader is integral in teaching, practicing, and
coaching Lean for organization members.
69

Theme 2: Questions for Development
The use of questions was a strong theme, with 10, or 77%, respondents discussing using
questions in learning Lean. Generally, questions increase the inquirer’s understanding; however,
several examples demonstrated the use of questions to increase the recipient’s knowledge by
encouraging deeper thinking. Questions extended beyond the boss-subordinate relationship to
include all levels of the organization and peers. Of particular note, the only other use of questions
by respondents was to understand the current condition when identifying problems.
Promotion of Learning
Organizations promoting continuous improvement through reduced waste and increased
value can only achieve this through their members. The term continuous improvement frequently
appears in Lean literature. However, continuous improvement is not limited to work processes
but includes employees. Lean seeks to engage all members of an organization to improve
themselves through learning continuously. DGI’s behavior expectations include individual
development at all levels, knowledge sharing with peers, learning from mistakes, and
subordinate development. The proliferation of human development in the expectations
demonstrates an organizational learning culture. When transitioning to Lean, middle managers
face additional challenges as they learn Lean techniques while simultaneously teaching their
members.
Coaches and leaders utilize questions to encourage deeper thinking on the part of the
recipient rather than increase their own understanding. Yamamoto et al. (2019) highlighted the
use of questions to promote deep reflection. Questions can help focus the learner in a specific
area to allow deep consideration of who, what, where, when, why, how, and how much, also
known as “5Ws and 2H,” according to Blake. Questions can be reflective, concentrated on
70

events that have already happened, or planning, focused on the next steps. Regardless of the type
of question, the goal is to promote thinking so that learning occurs. Table 5 provides several
comments from participants regarding using questions to stimulate learning.

Table 5
Participant Quotes: Questions to Promote Learning
Participant Participant quote
Alex If I’m trying to teach you something and I’m asking questions to try
to get you into very deep thinking.

Chris If they already know something, then we like to let them do it and
then ask them questions.

I’m asking them to make sure they’re not just doing the exercise, but
they’re really thinking about why they’re doing the exercise.

Drew Challenge you through questions to get you to think . . . to get you to
think more deeply so that you can learn.

Evan I ask questions, kind of trying to lead them in the direction of the
answer, but not give them the answer.

I’ve learned the most from that type of experience . . . you know, ask
questions and led me but didn’t give me the answers. It made me
think for myself. I think that’s where I grew the most. I think that’s
why I do it that way.

Francis Asking questions that really make you think versus giving you the
answer.

They need to explain what they’re going to do and have discourse
about it.

Morgan They ask questions that speak to a [DGI, a pseudonym] mindset.

Pat It forced an additional level of thinking.

Robin It certainly opens your mind up a little more, trying to grasp things I
hadn’t thought of before. How to look at things or question things.

71

Reflection is a specific type of questioning, that encourages one to think deeply about an
experience to impact future actions. Faller et al. (2020) indicated that reflection involves
cognitive and action orientations. The researchers describe reflection as mindful awareness to
make meaning in preparation for action. All members with a long-term Lean immersive
experience mentioned reflection, indicating that reflection is an advanced Lean skill. Chris
explained during his immersion, “we actually do reflections as part of our process regularly.”
Alex added that after a project, members reflect and share struggles they experienced with
coworkers as a means to both learn themselves and teach others.
Reflections are also used in planning future actions. Wilson (2008) differentiated between
reflection-on-action, looking at the past; reflection-in-action, looking at the present; and
reflecting-on-the-future, considering what might be and how to achieve. Chris offered that
reflections strived to contemplate, “what did you learn from this that will move us forward.”
Additionally, Blake described that reflections provide “a lot of ideas for the future,” further
illustrating the purpose of reflection is to impact future behaviors. Shannon’s experience at a
different employer highlighted the absence of reflective practice “I can’t remember ever doing a
reflection, a bona fide reflection.” Reflection occurs before, during, and after an activity to
promote learning.
Reflection, looking back or looking forward, is a vital skill all members of a Lean
organization use. Through reflection and questioning, members think deeply about what
happened and why to foster learning and development. The continual development of all
members aligns with Lean’s philosophy of continuous improvement.
72

Types of Questions
The types of questions participants received while learning Lean or used while practicing
Lean vary but consistently stimulate thinking. The thinking is often concentrated on problem
identification or problem-solving, encouraging the anticipation of questions for a presentation; or
deeper, retrospective thinking on other topics. In all cases, the participants felt the questions
foster an environment of learning and development by promoting intense contemplation and
discussion.
Questions often focus on thinking methods, including problem identification and problem
solving. Francis disclosed receiving questions that helped “funnel down to the real problem.”
While Pat indicated questions meant to “force discussion of thought processes.” Chris shared
several examples of questions directly related to problem identification, including “is it a
problem, what are those problems, and is it a problem you can actually solve?” When developing
others in Lean practices, Blake indicated using questions to “teach them how to really understand
or visualize the process,” which then allows the members to “see the problems” and eventually
“solve the problems.” Questions from a leader to a subordinate help guide the problem-solving
process.
Participants felt questions helped them to prepare for a presentation. Gene reported, “by
the time I presented, I knew what kind of feedback I could potentially get, and I could actually
respond to it.” Ultimately leading to “the feedback you get, in the presentation itself, is not so
much a surprise.” Francis shared that questions were asked, “to really make you think on how to
simplify (a presentation), how to make your story very clear.” In conjunction with reflection-
before-action, questions promote anticipation of others’ questions when developing
presentations.
73

Lean discourages members from asking questions to gather information but encourages
confirming through firsthand observation. However, administrative processes are often invisible
or infrequent, making observation challenging. Alex disclosed, “we have to default to asking
people if we can’t see, and that kind of goes against our philosophy.” Loyd et al. (2020)
recognized first-hand observation as a critical cultural behavior in Lean organizations.
Additionally, Reynders et al. (2022) reported that a leader’s presence at the work process
enhances employee engagement. Involving members responsible for the work builds
engagement, but the leader retains responsibility for understanding the process and issues and
prioritizing problem-solving efforts. Leaders balance their time at the worksite by observing
what is really happening while engaging workers.
Lean uses questions to promote the development of members through the stimulation of
thinking. Questions can be reflective, looking back, or anticipatory, looking forward. Often,
leaders focus questions on problem identification and problem solving in support of Lean’s
objective of continuous improvement of both the process and the individual.
Theme 3: Tailored Leadership Approach
Adjusting the leadership approach to individual needs based on experience and
knowledge is not only a best education practice but is used in Lean coaching. In a book
reviewing 12 different leadership approaches and theories, Northouse (2019) recognized the
definition of leadership has evolved, and no single leadership theory or approach was applicable
in all situations. Lean recognizes the leader’s responsibility to accurately assess the employee
and adjust leadership style. Identifying individual needs and adapting the leadership approach
appropriately demonstrates socio, transformational leadership skills. These skills align with the
cultural aspect of appreciating the value of people by promoting the most effective strategy for
74

the individual. Scaffolding or continual reduction of leader support as the employee gains
competency develops employee self-confidence. Lean uses an individual approach that expands
content over time while reducing support as the member grows.
Experienced Based Approach
Participants shared that Lean leaders modify their approach based on the individual
employee’s needs. As discussed in Chapter Two, Tortorella and Fogliatto (2017) conducted an
empirical study that linked the Blanchard SLII Situational Leadership styles of direct, support,
coach, and delegate to various levels of the organization during different phases of Lean
implementation. A review of Blanchard’s SLII website indicated leadership styles that were
classified considering the level of directive and supportive behaviors. The leader should apply
each style based on the employee’s development level for the specific task (Ken Blanchard
Companies, n.d.). The website further explained the need to appropriately gauge the employee’s
level and adjust the leadership style and shared that 54% of leaders failed to modify styles and
utilize the same leadership style despite the unique characteristics of the situations. Zigarmi and
Roberts (2016) studied, from the employee’s perspective, the use and appropriateness of the
various styles providing empirical evidence of matched use of leader style with employee’s self-
assessed need.
The level of direction and support the leader provides differentiates the various leadership
styles. Directing is characterized by highly directive behavior and is used when employees have
a low level of task knowledge and experience but are committed to achieving success. Examples
include providing step-by-step instructions. Coaching is used when employees have some level
of task knowledge and experience. The leader’s approach shifts from giving specific instructions
to including dialogue to solicit the employee’s thoughts on the direction and next step. The
75

Supporting style transfers more planning and ownership to the employee. The leader does not
provide detailed instructions but remains engaged through frequent interactions and checking
progress. Finally, leaders use delegating for employees with high knowledge, experience, and
motivation levels. In this style, the leader and employee agree on the objective and desired
results. The employee retains ownership of the process. Interactions between the leader and the
employee predominantly focus on interpersonal exchanges, including praise and recognition
(Whitehead, 2016). Table 6 includes various participants’ comments demonstrating the use of
directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating leadership styles.

76

Table 6
Examples of Various Leadership Style Use
Leadership style Participant Participant quote
Directing Blake For administration [where members lack experience], I
needed to start with the basics . . . when they do it the
second time, they are more independent.

When we deal with people who have zero experience,
basically, it puts a little more burden on coaches; they
have to work a little more to transfer the knowledge to
people who are completely unfamiliar with [Lean].

Chris If there was a group that was newer, I would either do
all of it by myself or with one of their people to try
and train somebody.

Francis Somebody that doesn’t have any experience . . .it’s
definitely that kind of Mr. Miyagi, or master and
apprentice type situation with Socratic questions.

Robin I think it takes longer to operate in an environment
where there is a lack of [experience and
knowledge] . . . more explanation, and a lot more
grace, and patience for sure.

Coaching Alex Instead of doing everything ourselves . . . showing them
how we do what we do.

Francis Somebody that doesn’t have any experience . . .it’s
definitely that kind of Mr. Miyagi, or master and
apprentice type situation with Socratic questions.

Supporting Alex [When] they’ve already had exposure . . . we’re actually
a little bit more hands-off, and we take more of like a
coaching role with them.

Francis Somebody with more experience, you definitely give
them more leeway . . . it’s more of a discussion and
being a sounding board.

Delegating Morgan The ideal situation is that we don’t need to exist because
everybody knows how to do this without us.

77

Lean leaders recognized the responsibility to accurately assess employees’ level of
development to identify the appropriate leadership style to employ. Participants recognized the
need for the leader to adjust styles rather than the employee. Morgan shared, “we’re trying to
meet people more where they are.” Shannon also highlighted the leader’s responsibility, saying,
“I have to meet them where they are.” Further adding, “I have to slow down and make sure they
understand,” explaining accountability for successful learning lies with the leader. Drew
supported this view saying, “as a leader, I need to be able to recognize the development level of
my subordinate or the team that I’m working with,” again placing the accountability for
assessment on the leader.
Effective leaders recognize that each employee and situation is unique and may require
different styles for different tasks. Evan demonstrated an individual approach: “I think just the
amount of personal coaching they need changes depending on their experience.” Adding, “I take
it, person, by person, really.” An approach that varies by individual and task provides various
leadership styles unique to the individual and situation.
Lean leaders assess the individual’s current engagement and skill level and the skills and
motivation needed for the task to ensure the appropriate leadership style. As an organization
progresses through initial Lean implementation to Lean sustainment, the leadership styles adjust
accordingly from directing to coaching and supporting as members gain experience. An adaptive
leadership approach aligns with Leans socio transformational practice.
Scaffolding
In education and learning, scaffolding refers to gradually reducing instructor support as
the student develops mastery. Scaffolding helps to reduce the cognitive load allowing the learner
to focus on designated areas (Ambrose et al., 2010). The researchers further suggested an
78

individual approach to scaffolding with an appropriate challenge level based on the learner’s
current level. Lean uses a scaffolding approach when exposing employees to new techniques and
practices. Schunk and Usher (2019) explained that scaffolding helps build self-efficacy when
employees achieve successive successes of increasing scope and complexity. Small wins of
success increase an employee’s confidence while building a foundation for more complex
concepts.
Scaffolding is an approach used in learning to adjust content based on the individual’s
experience level. None of the participants used the word scaffold; however, several explained
breaking down complex concepts into smaller pieces and achieving success. Alex summarized
What we’ve found works best is doing things that get them small wins and then
expanding from there. . . Maybe we’ll just do a small project, get them to really believe in
it, and then we can expand that. We’ve also found success that way because if we throw
too much at people, they tend to get overwhelmed, and they’re not going to use it.
They’re not going to do it.
Evan emphasized, “start with the basics, like give them the concepts and explain the background
and the concepts as well, instead of just throwing them in the fire.” Lean leaders use scaffolding
to create opportunities for small successes to build a foundation before increasing content and
complexity.
The study participants described a personalized approach based on the learner’s
experience level and an appropriate amount of content for developing others. This approach
prevents overwhelming an individual with too much content too fast while delivering multiple
opportunities for success, further building the learner’s self-efficacy. As the learner gains
experience, the leader gradually removes support until no longer needed.
79

Discussion for Research Question 1
Participants’ learning experiences were impacted by where and how they learned. The
leader’s reflection on their experience later influenced how they taught others. Participants
consistently mentioned using questions for the learner’s development during the study’s
interviews. In particular, reflection, encouraging deep thinking to impact future actions,
stimulates continual learning for all members. As members gain skills and experience, the leader
gradually removes support employing a tailored approach for each individual in each situation.
Findings for Research Question 2: Organizational Culture
Schein (2017) described organizational culture as a collection of values, beliefs, and
customs that guide members’ behaviors and actions. These can be visible or invisible. Schein
further explained culture consists of three levels: artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic
underlying assumptions. Additionally, Burke (2018) recognized that organizational leadership
heavily influences culture, impacting middle management through system, policy, and procedure
changes. The participants provided a variety of perspectives on the organizational culture due to
their diverse backgrounds. This study has confirmed cultural elements identified in research that
support Lean, including appreciating the value of people (Loyd et al., 2020, Reynders et al.,
2022) and continuous improvement (Netland et al., 2020). The first theme focuses on the cultural
elements that support Lean. The second theme follows with cultural elements that inhibit Lean.
Participants shared aspects of the culture that inhibited Lean, including the belief that Lean only
applies to manufacturing, hesitation to expose problems, and an assortment of divergent
subcultures. The multi-culture aspect exposed the final theme of a concerted effort to unify and
clearly articulate the various cultures into a single, shared understanding. Table 7 provides a
summary of themes and subthemes.
80

Table 7
Research Question 2 Subthemes: Organization Culture
Themes Subthemes
Cultural support Appreciating the value of people
Continuous improvement

Cultural inhibitors Lean does not apply here
Hidden problems

So many cultures Manufacturing versus administration
Uniting cultures

Theme 1: Cultural Support
The supporting cultural elements aligned with the socio-technical aspects of lean. With
one component around people and one component around continuous improvement. Both
components appeared regularly in DGI’s internal document of behavior expectations and on the
website. Although there are two distinct elements, they work together to create an overall
atmosphere of waste elimination through engaged employees.
Appreciating the Value of People
Appreciating the value of people extends beyond traditional recognition of contributions.
All members of the organization value others for their input, their work, and their ability to
develop. DGI’s global website recognizes people, employees and customers, are integral to
fulfilling its vision through continual improvement every day, adding that human knowledge and
creativity are crucial to meeting customers’ needs. Appreciation is demonstrated by the
organization assuring each employee has a sense of achievement about their work, contributing
to organizational goals and doing so efficiently, without waste. At DGI, the appreciation of
81

people is shown through “making people’s jobs easier . . . we don’t want people coming in and
doing a bunch of rework, and waiting on someone, and working with the database that doesn’t
provide the right outputs and things like that” according to Alex. Adding “our whole role is to
make people’s jobs easier.” Chris supported this perspective adding the element of development,
“it’s about making people’s jobs better and giving them a little bit of power to do that change
themselves, like empowering them.” Drew also highlighted showing the appreciation through
development, “the ultimate goal is to respect them through developing.” The internal description
of behaviors included providing members with “a sense of purpose.” Finally, Morgan
summarized by saying, “[DGI, a pseudonym] values individuals so deeply that we do not want
them working on things that aren’t a priority . . . it’s not fair to you, as an individual, to be
wasting your time on something I don’t care about.” People are valued for their ability to
develop and improve, ultimately supporting the Lean initiatives. People are appreciated in the
results of the Lean initiatives, with jobs that add value and are not wasteful.
Continuous Improvement
Morgan explained the concept of continuous improvement really is continuous, never-
ending “year over year, you engage in long-term planning so that you can execute improvements
so that you can move your workforce from low-value work to higher-value work over time.”
Francis explained the endless endeavor as “never happy with the current state, continually
looking to lower, we call it lower the water level, expose the rocks [problems] and improve so
continually challenge and become more efficient, effective, safe.” Continuous improvement
engages every member of the organization every day.
Several participants shared methods used to encourage employee participation in
continuous improvement initiatives. The internal behavior descriptions clearly identify the
82

leader’s role in encouraging members to pursue continuous improvements, including
identification, developing strategies, and creative thinking with leader feedback and coaching.
Leslie shared, “there’s always been a promotion of kaizen (continuous improvement) or kaizen
type activities. You know, I remember back when I was young, they used to give away towels
for people” that made improvements. In addition, Morgan explained encouraging continuous
improvement activities by providing visibility to upper management for members that progressed
through “a local, usually a regional, and then global contest” where employees compete for the
best improvement activity. Company-wide recognition activities instill the value of continuous
improvement in the organization’s culture.
Shannon expressed how the two cultural elements, appreciation for the value of people
and continuous improvement, interacted “that ideology of continuous improvement, being Lean,
it’s just embedded in how you treat people and how you talk to people.” Blake explained when
“people embrace kaizen (continuous improvement), they express they want to improve.” The
cultural elements align with the socio, people-focused, and technical, process-focused aspects of
Lean.
Theme 2: Cultural Inhibitors
Cultural inhibitors include the policies, procedures, practices, and beliefs that impede the
implementation of Lean. Employee commitment to organizational change is influenced by their
understanding of the change (Onyeneke & Abe, 2021). The inhibitors can either prevent Lean
from being attempted or hinder efforts at implementing Lean. The most severe inhibitor was the
belief that Lean does not apply in administration; Lean was only used in manufacturing. This
belief prevented initial attempts at Lean. Less severe impediments were a lack of performance
measures and a hesitancy to expose problems or efforts to keep problems hidden. The culture can
83

negatively impact either effort to begin the initial implementation of Lean with thoughts that
Lean is not applicable or efforts to sustain Lean by failing to surface problems.
Lean Does Not Apply Here
A common cultural inhibitor discussed was the application of Lean principles did not
apply to administration, with nine participants commenting. Various explanations were provided,
including Lean tools, Lean’s effectiveness, and lack of priority. The participants offered that
tools developed for manufacturing needed adaption for administration. Administrative leaders
lacked confidence in the effectiveness of Lean in administration. Finally, administrative leaders
did not prioritize Lean. The belief that Lean does not apply to administration inhibits the
implementation efforts.
Lean tools developed for manufacturing processes often are ineffective when applied to
administrative processes. Blake shared that “tools which we use commonly in manufacturing are
not easily applicable to administrative divisions.” Chris explained Lean tool usage in
administration requires “adjust(ing) them slightly or maybe misuse them, not exactly how they
were originally intended.” Blake and Chris developed extensive knowledge of Lean tools
through long-term immersive learning and understood the modifications needed to make the
tools effective in various environments. Francis, with less knowledge, shared, “the tools that
we’ve developed for the floor (manufacturing) don’t necessarily directly apply to administration;
we’re trying, we’re kind of struggling with how to apply them the right way, in an effective
way.” Highly skilled members can modify tools for use in administration; however, the vast
majority of members have not developed the ability.
A general lack of confidence in Lean’s implementation in administration is another
cultural inhibitor. Gene expressed doubt, “I think the jury is still out in terms of will [Lean] work
84

effectively with administrative applications.” Evan said, “we’re not a shop, you know, we’re not
a plant; I think there’s some hesitancy to take the time to apply some of these concepts.” The
most discouraging comment was from Blake, “groups are making the assumption that our team
members across [DGI, a pseudonym] are incapable of learning [Lean].” Robin summarized, “it’s
our own biases and opinions and thinking way that inhibits kind of the ability to fully implement
[Lean].” The document analysis revealed only 50% or 4 of 8 job postings mentioned Lean skills
as desirable. Of the four that included Lean skills, three had the skills as required, while one had
Lean skills as “an added bonus.” Leaders will not prioritize Lean initiatives as long as they
believe the likelihood of failure is high.
Even with a belief in the applicability of Lean in administration, prioritization is still
lacking. Leslie shared a lack of priority, “admin has not been a target of lean,” and Morgan, “we
hire outsiders for executive roles, we promote people based on criteria that have nothing to do
with the Lean mindset.” Failure of leadership to prioritize Lean through objective setting and
recognition of successes prevents the growth of the practices.
Hidden Problems
Eleven participants identified efforts to keep problems hidden or failure to surface
problems. Related to this was the lack of data availability, including performance indicators.
Typically manufacturing has standard performance measures used by all groups providing
efficiency, quality, and safety data. However, Blake explained, “for the office, each group needs
to decide [their measurables] because they’ll be different group by group.” Administration
processes vary greatly; therefore, they lack standard performance measures and may require each
process to develop individual performance measures. Alex expressed frustration, “speaking
about the difference between admin and manufacturing, really in admin, people don’t keep KPIs
85

[key performance indicators].” Pat acknowledged administration used some performance
measures; however, “the metrics aren’t as specific or helpful as we might think.” Lack of
accurate performance measures leads to “somewhat of a disconnect between what management
thinks is happening and maybe what is actually happening,” according to Robin. Drew
emphasized that accurate data allows them to “know what our actual situation is.” Another
problem exists when data is available, but the reliability is suspect. Drew disclosed a time when
“nobody even knew where that number came from . . . they couldn’t substantiate where that
came from.” Drew continued explaining inaccurate data helps keep problems hidden, “we don’t
know how big it is or how small it is.” Performance measures need to apply to the specific
process and provide accurate information.
There was hesitancy at all levels of the organization to have their problems exposed to
others. Drew explained, “when we actually present it up to upper management, the story changed
quite a bit and became more rose-colored; the real problems were not exactly hit as hard as I
thought they should.” While Evan mentioned, “some [employees] are very guarded and don’t
want to make a mistake.” Morgan recognized, “it takes quite a bit of courage to have your
problems exposed.” However, Alex admitted, “typically in admin, if you raise problems, you
either get assigned to fix them, or somebody gets involved.” Regardless of the motivation, failure
to surface problems nearly guarantees they will not be addressed.
It is noteworthy that all members with administration work experience and learned Lean
through a short-term immersive method acknowledged an approach to establish a safe space as
discussed in Research Question 1. These participants understood the impact of concealed
problems, having experienced the culture first-hand. Although the participants may not have
86

recognized the motivation for their behavior, their comments demonstrate they recognized the
benefit.
Participants consistently reported cultural elements that inhibited Lean’s application in
administration. A failure to recognize the applicability of Lean practices in administration
prevents any attempt to try Lean. Further, hidden problems prevent the continued application of
Lean’s problem-solving approach for continual improvement.
Theme 3: So Many Cultures
Organizations can have multiple cultures. Schein (2017) explained that various
subcultures could emerge as organizations grow. Additionally, employees may be influenced by
the overall company culture and the culture of their function or profession. For example, a high-
tech company may value quick response and flexibility, while the sales function within that
company values building customer relationships over time. Reports from participants varied
widely, from Gene indicating, “we’re all one organization; we have common leaders that really
are expressing the same message,” to Jordan sharing, “there were so many different cultural
artifacts out there that were being used.” DGI members share common core beliefs grounded in
appreciating the value of people and continuous improvement. Yet, each function has a unique
set of values, competencies, principles, or attitudes that supplement common beliefs, often
lacking alignment.
A review of eight external job postings for middle management positions yielded three
different explanations of the overall organization. One explanation was visionary, including the
organization’s mission and how the workgroup supported the mission. Another explanation
provided information on what the employee can expect in the work environment. The final
87

description presented was vague and general, providing little detail. The various descriptions of
the overall company illustrate the divergent cultures.
Manufacturing Versus Administrative Cultures
Manufacturing functions and administrative functions each have unique cultural
elements. The most prevalent conflict was the belief that Lean applied to manufacturing but did
not apply to administration. Blake explained in manufacturing, “every employee hired goes
through [Lean] training and has all the basics and then gets additional training throughout their
career.” While in administration, “I don’t believe such a thing exists . . . some people don’t even
have an understanding of the terms.” Blake explained that all manufacturing organization levels
had grown up in the same environment and shared a learning environment. Gene offered, “they
don’t see the potential benefit on the administrative side, yet,” stressing the word yet. All
participants actively pursue Lean in administrative areas and remain optimistic or committed that
through continual exposure, the culture will become more inclusive of Lean principles; however,
this transition will take time. Manufacturing’s Lean culture has promoted an environment where
Lean experience is recognized and rewarded; meanwhile, administration’s lack of Lean culture
does not promote the usage of Lean.
Uniting Cultures
Organizational cultures guide the behaviors of their members through established policies
and procedures. Costanza et al. (2016) reported that cultures, once established, are slow to
change. The researchers recommended an adaptive culture that recognizes the need to be flexible
to adapt to external environmental changes, assuring the organization’s long-term survival.
Aligned with continuous improvement, DGI sought to unify and update the various cultures to
equip the organization for future challenges. Beyond issuing a communication of the cultural
88

changes, DGI “embedded that in our performance system, we embedded it into onboarding,
we’ve embedded it into our communication platforms and channels and things like that. Those
are all key ways of reinforcing it,” according to Jordan. DGI’s actions demonstrate the
recognition of the relationships between external environmental factors, organizational culture,
policies and procedures, and individual needs and values in the Burke-Litwin model of
organizational performance and change (Burke, 2018). Acknowledging the existence of multiple
cultures and the confusion it caused prompted the organization to coalesce into an updated
cultural explanation for its employees.
Discussion for Research Question 2
An organization’s culture guides its members’ behaviors and actions. The participants
shared elements of the culture that supported Lean efforts, including appreciation of the value of
people and continuous improvement. Additionally, the participants shared cultural elements that
inhibited the implementation of Lean, such as failure to recognize the applicability of Lean and
the practice of keeping problems hidden. Leader’s recognition of the culture aids in the
identification of supporting and inhibiting factors which influence implementation succes.
Findings for Research Question 3: Overcoming Barriers
Leaders encounter barriers when implementing Lean and sustaining Lean practices in
administrative areas. Chapter Two included a review of barriers found in both manufacturing and
administration and barriers unique to administration. While sharing their experiences, the study
participants encountered barriers also found in the literature. Additionally, the participants
identified barriers that were not in the literature. The first theme addresses barriers. The second
theme focuses on the successful strategies the participants utilized to overcome either cultural
89

inhibitors or barriers. The final theme is the unsuccessful strategies attempted by the participants.
Table 8 provides a summary of themes and subthemes.

Table 8
Research Question 3 Subthemes: Overcoming Barriers
Themes Subthemes
Barriers Barriers found in literature
Barriers not found in literature

Successful strategies Visualization
Allies and advocates
Small successes and recognition
Coaching
Training
Leader competition

Unsuccessful strategies Tool usage
Kaizen leader

90

Theme 1: Common and Unique Barriers
All 13 participants shared barriers they encountered during implementing and sustaining
Lean in administration. Many of these barriers aligned with those found in literature and
concentrated on upper-level leaders and process characteristics. Additionally, the participant
mentioned barriers not found in the literature; however, they seem to apply to administrative
processes.
Barriers Commonly Found in Literature
Several participants mentioned barriers also found in the literature, including barriers
related to leadership and barriers related to process characteristics. Lack of leadership
involvement aligns with the cultural inhibitor of lean only applies to manufacturing. Invisible
processes are difficult to observe. The study identified specific characteristics making process
observation challenging, including cognitive work, task switching, and extended process time.
The participants provided rich descriptions of the frustrations they experienced and the
challenges they confronted when encountering these barriers.
Leader Support. Leader support is impacted by the realization of a problem or Lean’s
benefits. Lack of leader support impacts both organizational change success (Alhaqbani et al.,
2016; Burke, 2018; Fryer et al., 2018; Galli, 2018; Onyeneke & Abe, 2021) and the success of
Lean (Aij et al., 2015; Engle et al., 2017; Ferenhof et al., 2018; Holweg et al., 2018; Netland et
al., 2020). This study addresses the barrier of Lean’s applicability in administration as a cultural
inhibitor. The leader’s mindset or willingness to change impacts leader support. Finally, leader
support may be missing due to a lack of understanding of what Lean is, how to do Lean, or the
benefits of Lean.
91

Leader Mindset. Although not a common issue, the leader’s mindset, either unwilling to
change or lacking a sense of urgency, was identified as a barrier. Evan explained, “I think in
administration, they get set in their ways, and they’re not as open.” They suggested this attitude
resulted from “long-term processes that have been around . . . people grew up with them, and
they’re unwilling to change.” Urgency is determined based on the understanding of the
implications of the situation. If there are no or minimal consequences to not solving a problem,
then the problem will be left to linger. In Lean manufacturing, if a process is delayed, the
following processes will soon be impacted, and the issue proliferates. However, in
administration, Shannon shared the familiar feeling, “if we prolong this one more day, you know,
the sky isn’t going to fall out.” There is a sense of urgency in manufacturing due to the rapid
increase of impact resulting from problems spreading from one process to the next. On the other
hand, administrative processes are more disjointed; therefore, problems in one process may take
weeks or months before they impact another process.
Leader Knowledge Level. The participants shared their surprise at the gap in Lean
understanding between the manufacturing and administrative organizations. Blake explained that
a new manufacturing employee “goes through [Lean] training and has all the basics, and they get
additional training throughout their career.” However, in administration, “I don’t believe such a
thing exists.” This approach allowed all levels of the manufacturing organization to develop a
deep understanding of Lean. Leslie rationalized, “admin has not been a target of Lean as much as
the physical manufacturing process has.” Morgan summarized, “our [administrative] leaders are
not developed in a progression of Lean mindset their whole career like they are on the
manufacturing side.” Failure to instill career-long development in Lean has led to administrative
leadership’s lack of understanding of Lean.
92

In addition to training and development, administrative functions have not required Lean
knowledge for career progression. Morgan explained, on the manufacturing side, “you don’t get
promoted if you don’t have experience in [Lean]. You have to practice it at every point in your
job.” Morgan’s final frustration with administration was shown, “we hire outsiders for executive
roles, and we promote people based on criteria that have nothing to do with the Lean mindset.”
The administrative functions are void of Lean knowledge due to a lack of strategic,
comprehensive, continual development plan in Lean throughout a career. Robin summarized,
“it’s our own biases and opinions and thinking way that inhibits kind of the ability to fully
implement [Lean].” This ignorance impacts the leader’s ability to see problems or recognize the
benefits of Lean.
Hard to Observe Processes. Administrative processes are unique because it is difficult
to observe what is happening. Loyd et al. (2020) stressed the importance of observation at the
actual worksite. Process observation is critical to grasp what is happening and accurately
identifying problems. Francis stated, “it becomes very difficult to find the waste” when unable to
consistently observe a process. Process observation is also used to confirm the effectiveness of
countermeasure implementation. Challenges observing administration processes were the most
commonly reported process characteristic barrier, mentioned by eight participants. Observation
challenges are often due to the process being knowledge work or done in someone’s head, task
switching, and extended process time.
Cognitive Work. Literature identified invisible processes as a common barrier in
administrative processes (Stapleton et al., 2009). Evan expanded this idea clarifying that
administrative process often involve decision making, “you can’t see what’s going on in their
head to make those decisions . . . you don’t see the mental process that’s happening.” Evan
93

added, “understanding what choices they’re making and why their making them . . . their thought
process and how maybe somebody else may do it differently.” Cognitive work offers challenges
of being unable to observe and the risk of inconsistent methods from one person to another.
Task Switching. Task switching occurs when a single member bounces between multiple
processes making a single process challenging to observe. Francis noted, “they work on
something for one minute, switch to another thing, switch to another.” Gene had a similar
experience, “every 20 seconds they were switching from one activity to another, it was difficult
to actually track . . . they kept flipping back and forth between a call and email and text and they
would go back and forth” Alex expanded task switching to include work moving back and forth
between people, when “work is handed back and forth between people we almost have to watch
simultaneously multiple jobs happening at once to understand what’s happening.” Task
switching and process sharing complicate the ability to observe a process consistently.
Process Frequency. Administrative processes may have reduced frequency resulting in
insufficient observation opportunities. Evan explained,
out on the shop floor [manufacturing process], you can watch several cycles of something
in a shift (8-hour work day) and get an idea of what’s exactly happening: that’s not the
case in administration. I mean, something could take six months to fully happen.
Reduced frequency also hinders the ability to confirm countermeasure effectiveness, thus
extending the problems solving cycle.
Challenges in observing a process impact the ability to identify problems, solve
problems, and confirm the effectiveness of countermeasures. Observation challenges can result
from cognitive processes, task switching, or low-frequency, long lead-time processes.
Administrative processes are complicated by characteristics making observation difficult.
94

Barriers Not Common in Literature
Participants identified two primary barriers that were generally not found in the literature.
The first barrier was the lack of resources, particularly members’ inability to fully commit to
continuous improvement initiatives due to other work commitments. The second barrier was
administrative work often crosses department or division boundaries leaving the worker unaware
of how their process may impact another process resulting in concealed problems.
Lack of Resources. A common barrier identified by the participants but not often found
in literature was the lack of resources. When members are absent in administration, their work
piles up and is waiting when they return to the job. In manufacturing, when a member is missing,
someone else is put on their process, so when the original member returns, there is no work piled
up, waiting. Alex explained, “it’s very difficult to pull people out of their day-to-day jobs.
Whereas in manufacturing, pulling people out for development opportunities is very common.
They’ll just put someone else in their place.” During administrative improvement activities, “we
lose people midway through the week, something came up, a crisis, they’re the only person that
knows it,” explained Alex. Chris expressed frustration with the “level of difficulty to get people
out of their jobs to actually make time to do the kaizen.” Gene added, “the challenge is securing
their time amongst their other priorities.” The organization structure in manufacturing supports
improvement initiatives with member cross-training and resources to cover unfilled processes.
Leadership directly influences resource availability. Leaders need to recognize Lean as a
priority and assign appropriate resources. Jadhav et al. (2014) identified a lack of financial
resources as the most frequently mentioned barrier to implementing Lean in a literature review
but failed to mention the lack of human resources as a concern.
95

Cross Group. Work that flows across group lines often results in unintentionally
concealed problems. Employees in one group may lack knowledge of what a downstream group
does with the work they produce. Blake shared their experience, “processes usually go across the
divisions, and the process is handed over from one group to another, and people usually
understand their piece but don’t understand what happens with the information they provide or
what the customer does.” The lack of downstream process knowledge leads to concealed
problems.
Another concern with cross-group work is the mistake of thinking that shifting work from
one group to another is an improvement. Francis explained, “they brought the project to us, and
really what they wanted was another organization to do something that they were doing.”
Moving work from one person to another or one group to another is not a practice utilized in
Lean unless the greater organization realizes an overall improvement.
When an organization implements Lean, the organization faces an array of socio and
technical barriers. The socio barriers are often related to leadership and employees. Leaders may
impede Lean efforts due to an unwilling mindset or lack of knowledge. Employees often face
additional workloads preventing full support of Lean efforts. The technical barriers are often
related to administrative processes’ unique characteristics, including difficulty observing and
extending to other groups. All 13 participants in this study shared experiences where they
encountered barriers, indicating the frequency of occurrence in practice.
Theme 2: Successful Strategies
Efforts to mitigate barriers and cultural inhibitors were directed upwards, towards
leadership; laterally, towards peers; downwards, towards subordinates, and finally, towards Lean
practices. In some cases, the strategy may be effective for various groups; for example,
96

visualizing the process helps leaders understand an issue’s significance while assisting the
operational level in knowing where to focus improvement efforts. Blake summarized, “when we
map the entire process, then we can see duplication, we can see inefficiencies, we can see
stagnation.” Commonly discussed strategies included visualization to promote understanding,
identifying allies within the organization, building confidence through small wins, coaching, and
training foundational items. A strategy that was less frequently mentioned but was reported as
successful included building competition among leaders.
Visualization
Visualization helps create a shared understanding of the current condition or the desired
future state. Several researchers mentioned using Value Stream Mapping to visualize the current
condition to identify problems (Cusumano et al., 2021; Drohomeretski et at., 2014; Hadid &
Mansouri, 2014; Jasti & Kodali, 2014; Makwana & Patange, 2021; van Assen, 2018).
Visualizing is challenging; however, it is a powerful communication tool. “Learning how to
summarize information that tells a story . . . takes time to become good at,” shared Evan. Further
explaining the benefits of visualization, “show what is happening, where is the problem, and
making it visible so that it’s easily understood by everybody involved.” Blake emphasized the
benefit of visualization to help “identify the gaps which leads us to maybe problem-solving or
kaizen implementation to close the gap.” Francis illustrated the benefits showing the desired
future state provides for all levels of the organization by “mak(ing) a path for what needs to be
done” and aiding in developing a “consensus with that group and the other group on what needs
to be done.” Visualization is a tool to create a shared understanding of the problems and the
direction forward.
97

However, it is critical to ensure the information included in the visualization is accurate.
Drew shared a time when they used unconfirmed data, and “the countermeasures did not exactly
reach the root cause because we didn’t dig deep enough or we were not able to pull out exactly
what the real issue was.” Alex had similar experiences, “it’s frustrating, I will say, because when
you ask people, tell me about your process, and we draw it out, and then we go and actually
observe them, it’s wildly different.” Performance indicators, as discussed as a cultural inhibitor,
were again stressed as a means to gather data for visualization and confirm the countermeasures’
impact. Visualization helps identify problems, create strategies for improvement, and create
shared understanding at all levels of the organization.
Allies and Advocates
When faced with opposition, four participants mentioned identifying an ally within the
organization. In particular, Morgan utilized staff-level allies to “get a toe in the door with
someone much farther down the chain, help them solve a problem, and then bring visibility to
that problem to the leadership.” At the leadership level, Morgan identified allies and built
advocates by “recruit(ing) leaders to be judges in competitions.” Alex emphasized the
importance of spreading the support, “the more we do activities across the enterprise, the more
people are talking about it, and I guess trusting it and actually believing it.” Allies and advocates
help increase the engagement of others by sharing their own experiences and successes.
Recognizing Success
Recognition of success increases engagement and confidence. Employee recognition and
opportunity for development increase engagement (Saks, 2019). Small, quick wins are one
approach to show the benefit of Lean. Evan explained sharing not only the success but also the
process to obtain that success, “trying to show some of the small wins; like this is what we did,
98

and this how it worked, and this is the improvement we got . . . showing them that it can work in
administration.” Leslie’s approach to recognition was to give staff-level employees exposure to
peers and executives, which also helped “facilitate connections across other groups or other
individuals or people within that team.” Morgan’s focus was building leader confidence through
acknowledgment “that this is a good exercise, that it’s worth their time, that it will benefit them,
that their people are better problem solvers because of it.” Incremental success and recognition
of success are strategies to build the engagement and confidence of subordinates, peers, and
leaders.
Coaching
Coaching was identified by eight of the participants as a means to develop subordinates
and peers. As discussed in Research Question 1, coaching often involves using questions to
encourage deeper thinking. Whitehead (2016) described coaching as a dialogue between leader
and employee to explore the employee’s thoughts. Leaders use this approach when the employee
has some task knowledge and experience. Further, Northouse (2019) recognized transformational
leadership includes inspirational motivation, working beyond self-interest, and intellectual
stimulation, such as innovation, new approaches, or challenging beliefs and values. Evan
reported using coaching one-on-one or in a group setting. A group setting promotes peer
learning; however, Evan also emphasized creating a safe space for sharing inadequacies. The
frequency of coaching varied from minute to minute when working side by side, to daily, to
weekly. Finally, coaching can be a short-term interaction or one that extends over time. At one
extreme, Alex shared, “learning from whoever is around you based on the assignment,” while
Pat mentioned a relationship that extended 15 years. Coaching’s adaptive, transformative
99

approach allows organizational members to develop in Lean at a pace appropriate for the
individual and in an environment that safeguards against humiliation.
Training
Lack of training or knowledge was shared as a barrier in administration. Alhaqbani et al.
(2016) suggested management’s lack of commitment was caused by poor understanding of the
purpose and benefits of continuous improvement. The participants used training to mitigate the
lack of knowledge. As discussed in Research Question 1, training can occur in a classroom,
eLearning, real-time explanation, or hands-on experience. Training generally progresses from
classroom or eLearning for basic tool usage to explanations, including the philosophy, to hands-
on applications with real-time coaching and feedback. However, the training needs to be
appropriate for the learner. Leslie shared training that
show(ed) you what we do in the factory and how we do [Lean] to an administrative
person, the value isn’t there. You see what it does, but trying to apply that to your job
when you get back to the office is difficult.
Initial training helps provide a foundation of knowledge built upon with additional training
through hands-on applications and coaching.
Leader Competition
An interesting approach mentioned by a single participant was leader competition. It is
worth noting this approach seems contrary to the overall organizational culture of appreciating
the value of people. Morgan described the approach as a corporate scorecard for the
organization’s upper-level created leader competition. Each executive was given a target, and
their achievement level was tracked and reported publicly. However, aligned with the culture
was the support provided to the executives to achieve their targets. Ultimately the objective of
100

this strategy was to propagate the use of Lean throughout the organization. Additionally, the
participant reported this strategy resulted in achievements exceeding the target for 3 successive
years. Although contrary to the organizational culture, a healthy level of competition motivated
leaders and propelled the organization forward.
Theme 3: Unsuccessful Strategies
Although participants did not report any strategies as entirely unsuccessful, they did
mention two strategies with caution. The first warning was related to using Lean tools developed
for manufacturing processes in administrative areas. The second caution area was using a kaizen
leader without proper support and preparation.
Tool Usage
There were mixed comments on the usage of typical manufacturing tools in
administrative areas. Comments ranged from some tools are unable to be used to some tools
could be used with modification. There was consensus that the detailed mechanics of the tools
are not critical as the “spirit of the tool, why it was developed,” according to Blake.
Some tools used in manufacturing are not applicable in administration. Gene reported,
“there are around 350 [Lean] skills you can actually develop [in manufacturing]. I think it was
narrowed down to 30 that really applied to administration.” Gene’s statement indicates that 90%
of the tools are inappropriate in an administrative environment. Leslie extended this sentiment to
the ineffectiveness of training used in manufacturing for administration when tool usage is
demonstrated through simulated manufacturing examples. Learners struggle to apply what was
learned when they return to their worksites. Drew shared after learning the manufacturing
applications, “I still didn’t know, at that time, how to apply it to the office.” Leaders must
consider the tool’s usefulness and adjust the training to relate to the individual’s needs.
101

The participants generally deemed a lift and shift approach unsuccessful, suggesting the
tools needed some modification or alteration before usage. Evan explained, “you kind of have to
be flexible with it or be creative with it and change it to the environment.” Whereas Blake
suggested, “people need to understand this thinking way so they can apply and modify those
tools as needed based on the problem they face.” Chris acknowledged the challenge of
“misus(ing) them, not exactly how they were originally intended,” while teaching inexperienced
users was difficult. Alex, on the other hand, expressed a desire to stay true, “we have a lot of
perfectionists . . . strong [Lean] technical experts, we call ourselves, and when we can’t follow it,
all of those things, it’s frustrating.” Traditional manufacturing tools may need adjustment to
apply to administrative areas, and leaders should also reflect these modifications in training.
Kaizen Leader
Another strategy that received mixed reviews was using a kaizen leader, a designated
position or assignment to lead improvement initiatives within the workgroup. Holmemo and
Ingvaldsen (2016) cautioned against strategies that exclude middle managers including using
Lean experts that are outside the organization structure such as a kaizen leader. To be effective,
the kaizen leader needs upper management support in terms of resources and clear direction, and
adequate training and experience. Chris disclosed a time, early in their career, they were assigned
the title of kaizen leader; however, “I realize I was put into those positions with maybe not the
skill level I needed to be able to implement and not being able to coach folks the way I probably
should have needed to coach folks.” Pat shared a similar experience, “that’s your job, there you
go, you’re given a title, and off you go and do it . . . more often than not, there’s significant
struggles.” Kaizen leaders without the necessary skills are guaranteed to fail at the worst and face
seemingly unsurmountable challenges at best.
102

Kaizen leaders can serve two primary purposes (a) to improve operations and (b) spread
Lean knowledge throughout the organization. An improper balance of these two objectives fails
to maximize benefits. Morgan explained earlier in their career, as a kaizen leader, they were
“perceived as free labor,” which prevented the process owners from engaging in problem
identification, problem-solving, and countermeasure implementation. Individuals overburdened
with kaizen initiatives, without support from other employees and leaders, leave the kaizen
leader isolated and often discouraged. Pat added “unexpected, unrealistic expectations” increased
stress for the kaizen leader. Morgan summarized the ideal situation: “we don’t need to exist
because everybody knows how to do this without us.” Kaizen leaders can effectively improve
organizational performance and develop employees with sufficient support.
Discussion for Research Question 3
Lean leaders can proactively employ several strategies to mitigate barriers when they
recognize they will encounter them. Lean implementers face barriers with leadership and with
the unique characteristics of administrative processes. Some effective strategies, such as
visualization and coaching, are helpful for multiple barriers. However, leaders must be cautious
when using Lean tools to ensure proper application for the task. Additionally, organizations that
utilize kaizen leaders need to ensure the process owners, including leadership, are fully engaged
in the improvement initiatives and use the opportunity to develop their Lean skills.
Tensions
The study revealed areas of tension or conflict. The first area is remote work, in which
two or more seemingly positive phenomena counteracted each other to create a negative impact.
The second theme is the conflicting emotions the participants expressed during the interviews.
103

Participants shared a range of emotions, from accomplishment to frustration. Tensions add stress
to an already challenging situation.
Theme 1: Remote Work
Workforce changes due to COVID and the Great Resignation have forced employers to
become more flexible, including allowing remote or hybrid work (Ferrazzi & Clementi, 2022).
However, remote work negatively impacts collaboration and the ability to observe processes
firsthand. Chris reinforced this message by saying, “sometimes I think that the new culture of
being remote is actually a hindrance.”
Working together, face to face, in the same location increases communication
effectiveness and builds collaboration and teamwork; failure to have that interaction hinders
interpersonal relationship building. Alex shared, “there’s just something about being there and
working with the team member.” Adding, “some virtual options for people which we don’t feel
like we get as good of a benefit.” Drew further shared, “when we work together in the room, it
was really, really great. I thought it was great discussion of reality and the brokenness of what’s
going on in this process.” Finally, Chris explained that “some things are better in person . . . be
part of a team and chat.” When members are in person, Chris commented, “I see very positive
reaction. I did this by hand on the wall; everybody’s talking, there’s not a delay in the
conversation.” In-person interaction builds a positive feeling of togetherness and collaboration.
Firsthand observation of the process is foundational to Lean. The administrative area’s
challenge of invisible processes (Stapleton et al., 2009) is further complicated when the
processes are remotely located. Additionally, several researchers stated the importance of the
leader being present at the worksite (Aij et al., 2015; Loyd et al., 2020; Netland et al., 2020;
Reynders et al., 2020). Chris explained challenges in identifying problems, including “hard to
104

keep track of where you’re actually spending time.” Robin agreed, “it’s difficult, I think, right
now, understanding what everybody’s working on” when workers are remote. Relying on
workers’ explanations of their jobs often results in inaccuracy. Alex indicated, “when we go and
actually observe them, it’s wildly different,” illustrating the challenge in grasping what is
happening further, adding, “that kind of goes against our philosophy; we like to ask things, not
people.” Firsthand observation provides insight into what is happening in a work process.
Even though remote work has presented new challenges, it has also increased the
“recognition across the organization that we must transform . . . in order to compete . . . we’ve
had to evolve and become more flexible,” according to Jordan. Continuous improvement applies
not only to individual work processes but also to the overall work environment. Appreciating
workers’ desires to work remotely aligns with Lean’s socio approach yet presents challenges to
Lean’s technical approach.
Theme 2: Conflicting Emotions
Emotions are words used to describe human experiences. Brown (2021) defined and
explained 87 human emotions and experiences to create a common language to explain human
experiences. Brown further explained the connection between feelings, thinking, and behavior;
however, she refrained from classifying emotions as negative or positive. People try to avoid
certain emotions because of the discomfort they bring while seeking experiences bringing
emotions with good feelings. The participants shared experiences described as exciting and
joyful while sharing experiences of pain and discomfort. The extremes of emotions resulting
from the Lean experience were unexpected.
Searching for words associated with emotions, a review of the transcripts yielded 230
responses. Figure 3 is a visual representation of the words used based on the frequencies. The
105

participants used 37 different terms. The word challenge was the most frequently used word,
with 40 instances used by nine participants. However, struggle was used by the most
participants, 11 of 13. Other commonly used words included connection and expectation, both
used by eight different participants.

Figure 3
Participant Emotion Word Usage

106

In addition to the variety of emotions, the participants also displayed conflicting emotions
in the tone, voice, and body language with the content of their message. Gene shared when they
spent over 150 hours developing a one-page document. Their words indicated a prolonged
struggle to “get it right,” but their speech was rapid and upbeat, including a smile when sharing.
Other participants shared their struggles with a smile, perhaps fondly remembering their eventual
success?
Undesired Emotions
Although questions can promote learning, there are times when questions become
demotivating and discourage the learner. There is a delicate balance between challenging to learn
more and overly aggressive questioning. Members unfamiliar with relentless questions may not
respond well. Alex shared, “it can also seem like very aggressive if you’re not used to that style .
. . of like constantly questioning to get them to think deeper. So, you can’t really use that on
everybody.” Francis further explained that the questioning “can become overbearing . . . to the
point where it becomes demotivating.” Gene described, “you need to have a tough skin” and
recognize “that you have a lot to learn.” The initial Lean learning experience was equated to “a
marine boot camp.” Morgan used “soul-crushing” as a descriptor. Other words that signify a
negative experience used to explain questioning included aggressive, critical, negative,
scrutinize, struggle, harsh, offended, overbearing, demotivating, scrutiny, and intensive.
The painful experiences were not limited to questioning. Feedback and learning also
elicited uncomfortable emotional experiences. Chris explained an approach to development,
“there are different ways to teach people and get people to grow. I would say most of the time
when we’re getting people to grow; the expectation is that growth comes from struggle.” Gene
commented, “you would expect kind of like twice as much negative feedback as positive
107

feedback,” which was justified because “you can’t grow unless you really have that constructive
feedback.” Brown (2021) reported that learning often includes feelings of discomfort, and
“comfortable learning environments rarely lead to deep learning” (p. 62). There was a general
acceptance that growth is painful.
Undesired emotional responses came from questioning and development struggles.
People try to avoid emotions that make them feel bad or uncomfortable. Additionally, undesired
emotions can adversely affect health, both physiological and psychological (Brown, 2021).
Leaders need to be cognizant of activities that risk evoking undesirable emotions.
Desired Emotions
The desired emotions included excitement and accomplishment. Often, members first
exposed to Lean practices share their excitement in learning. Alex shared that members were
“eager to learn” and “very excited.” Shannon’s excitement appeared when given a chance to
spread Lean knowledge to a part of the organization without prior exposure. Shannon was
animated, sharing, “when I first got (there), hot from (previous assignment), I was ready” to
share experiences with others. Members new to the organization may have learned about Lean in
school and are anxious to learn more and apply what they know.
Members’ reference to interest or curiosity expressed their desire and willingness to
learn. Gene shared, “it was interesting in that some of the guys were, their feedback was, I’m
really glad you’re urging us to think out-of-the-box.” Meanwhile, Alex thought it was “actually
pretty interesting” learning from various members, not just a supervisor. Later, Alex shared their
“interest” in a “challenge,” demonstrating that even uncomfortable situations can be met with
eager curiosity.
108

Pat shared their sense of accomplishment and ownership when they “go to the shop floor
and observe and come back with the data you collected. Not someone else’s data, not someone
else’s observations or words.” Meanwhile, with pride, Gene acknowledged a growing ability to
“pick up more and more so I could actually lead those efforts.” Finally, Leslie indicated
motivation came from “recognition leading to pride.” Positive feelings reinforce members’
activities and support the continued efforts.
Lean can elicit both emotions people seek and emotions they tend to avoid. The
contradictory emotions experienced by members learning, teaching, and practicing Lean
illustrate the complexity of Lean. Leaders must be aware of the socio implications of Lean and
apply transformational leadership skills to maximize members learning and engagement.
Discussion for Tensions
Recent developments in the workforce have forced changes in the Lean approach.
Remote work has added complexity to process observation and engaging workers in continuous
improvement initiatives. Balancing the value of people by providing flexible work arrangements
with the technical aspects of Lean principles presents challenges not yet addressed. Additional
tensions in emotional responses produced both desirable and undesirable experiences. A leader’s
understanding of the emotional impact of Lean, both good and bad, helps support members
during the implementation and sustainment of Lean efforts.
Summary
Leaders reflect on their learning experiences to apply what they have learned in practice
and teaching others. Leading and developing others requires an adaptive approach to match the
leadership style to the individual’s needs. Leadership styles evolve from directing to coaching to
supporting and finally to delegating as followers’ skills develop. Employee development is
109

supported by skillful questioning to encourage deep thinking and scaffolding, gradually
removing leader support. Leaders must also be mindful of the organizational culture, fully
employing elements supporting Lean while addressing factors that inhibit Lean. Participants
identified several successful strategies to mitigate barriers and cultural inhibitors to Lean.
110

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
This study aimed to understand leaders’ experiences as the mitigated barriers encountered
while implementing Lean in administrative areas. The leader’s role in implementing Lean
balances the technical implementation of Lean tools and principles with the socio aspects of
developing self and others in Lean philosophies and applications. The study utilized 13
interviews with middle management members that have demonstrated proficiency in
implementing Lean in administrative areas, along with document review and analysis. The
interviews posed questions to gain insight into each participant’s experiences related to the
research questions, including (a) their overall experience with Lean, (b) how the culture supports
or inhibits the implementation of Lean, and (c) what behaviors were used to mitigate barriers
encountered while implementing Lean. The participants’ experiences focused on learning and
teaching Lean and the barriers they encountered. The interviews exposed cultural supporting
elements, appreciating the value of people and continuous improvement, and inhibitors,
including Lean’s applicability to manufacturing and hesitancy to expose problems. Additionally,
the interviews and document review uncovered the phenomenon and impact of multiple
subcultures. Finally, the participants shared strategies they used to overcome the barriers
encountered. The strategies included technical approaches to identify and visualize problems as
well as socio approaches for coaching, recognizing, and motivating.
Discussion of Findings
The findings presented in the study address the three research questions, which focused
on leaders’ experiences, organizational culture, and behaviors to overcome barriers. This section
explains the findings while illustrating the linkage to the literature presented in Chapter Two.
Many of the findings aligned with the literature, including organizational leadership engagement,
111

cultural supports, and Lean tool usage; however, the prevalence of learning methods and
emotions have not been explored extensively in Lean literature. In particular, the use of questions
to promote deep learning and varying leadership styles were present in learning methods. The
contrast of emotions was a surprise for the researcher but aligned with the growing literature on
the socio aspects of Lean. Although Lean is a methodology for improving work, the
improvements are made by humans.
Individualized Learning
The findings indicate that the most effective way to teach and learn Lean is with an
individualized approach incorporating hands-on experiences with feedback through coaching.
The individualized leadership style considers the learner’s experience and motivation levels, as
suggested by Situational Leadership II (Ken Blanchard Companies, n.d.; Tortorella & Fogliatto,
2017; Whitehead, 2016). Additionally, scaffolding, by increasing content while gradually
removing instructor support, builds self-efficacy (Ambrose et al., 2010). Finally, using questions
throughout the experience encourages the learner to think deeply, reflecting on their own
experience. Ferenhof et al. (2018) recognized the capacity of questioning to guide learning.
Effective learning strategies were specific to the individual, including leadership styles, speed of
content increase, and the use of questions.
Organizational Learning
Organizations should utilize the Lean approach throughout to realize maximum benefit.
The growth of literature recognized the expansion of Lean implementation to an enterprise level
in the early 2000s (Stone, 2012). Furthermore, Hopp and Spearman (2021) indicated that Lean
should be considered at various levels, including individual processes, connections between
processes, systems, and organizationally. Expansion of Lean from a discrete improvement event
112

in a designated process to an enterprise-wide adoption where all members actively engage in
daily continuous improvement is the fundamental objective (Chiarini, 2013; Ferenhof et al.,
2018; Jasti & Kodali, 2014; Loyd et al., 2020; Reynders et al., 2022; Solaimani et al., 2019; van
Rossum et al., 2016). Organizations that embrace Lean wholistically maximize the benefits.
In addition to individual learning, the organization grows and develops by implementing
Lean. Freitas et al. (2018) reported a linkage between Lean practices and organizational learning,
including knowledge creation, knowledge retention, and knowledge transfer. Learning often
occurs in group settings. Espíndola et al. (2019) recognized the value of teamwork and
participation of all members when improving administrative processes. Further, Ambrose et al.
(2010) indicated that as mastery grows, the level of competence changes reaching a level of
unconscious competence, making knowledge transfer more difficult due inability to recognize
the learning needs of beginners. Less knowledgeable members may have more relatable
experiences and explanations to provide. Organizations can utilize various resources to create
and spread knowledge.
Organizational Leadership Engagement Is Critical
Transitioning to Lean is a type of organizational change. Leadership’s failure to support
Lean initiatives often impacts the original implementation and growth of Lean. During the
interviews, the participants distinguished between Lean leaders, those directly involved in the
teaching and continuous improvement activities, and organizational leaders, those at the upper
levels of the organization, removed from day-to-day activities. Resistance to change, lack of
prioritization, and efforts to keep problems hidden demonstrate a perception of the lack of
organizational leadership support. Often a cause of the mindset is reported as the lack of
knowledge or training in Lean and an overemphasis on tool application. Organizational
113

leadership facilitates Lean implementation by promoting the use of Lean tools and practices
while reinforcing the reason and purpose (van Assen, 2018), indicating that an understanding and
familiarity with the philosophies and practices of Lean is needed. Leadership needs to engage
throughout organizational change. Burke (2018) reported the leader’s role during three phases of
change, prelaunch, launch, and postlaunch. Further, Burke recognized leadership’s impact on
sustainable, significant, transformational change impacting the culture and climate of an
organization. Effective organizational leaders establish and communicate a vision and remain
engaged throughout the change (Errida & Lotfi, 2021). Specific to Lean, Netland et al. (2020)
recognized top management’s role in sponsoring Lean thorough active participation. Participants,
Lean leaders, recognized the challenges and frustrations encountered when organizational
leadership was not engaged.
The Socio Aspects of Lean Are Understated
Several researchers have commented on the socio and technical aspects of Lean (Frenhoff
et al., 2018; Hadid & Mansouri, 2014; Hadid et al., 2016; Lleo et al., 2017; Lleo et al., 2020;
Solaimani et al., 2019; van Assen, 2018). However, the research on the socio aspects is limited.
Van Rossum et al. (2016) reported a missing connection between the academic approach and
actual Lean transformation, highlighting the gap between extensive literature on Lean tool
literature and limited literature on Lean transformation approaches. Like the barrier of hard-to-
see processes in administrative work, Lean literature has focused on the visible aspects of the
tools and lacks the invisible, or hard-to-see, socio aspects.
Merriam-Webster (n.d.) defines sociology, etymology from socio- + -logie, as the study
of the behavior and interaction of human beings. The socio aspects of Lean exist in the
development of others, leadership support and engagement, and unique characteristics of
114

administrative processes. Too often, the literature focuses on the technical or tools of Lean and
the applications limited to manufacturing, as indicated in a Samuel et al. (2015) literature review
supporting Lean as an operations management philosophy. Additionally, Bhamu and Sangwan
(2014) and Stone (2012) reported the various phases of Lean literature, which began with
discovery and defining and developed to include dissemination and challenges but did not
identify a phase concentrating on the socio aspects.
Participants felt the socio aspects of Lean as critical in mitigating barriers, including
coaching, recognition, motivation, and leadership engagement. Ferenhof et al. (2018) were one
of the few researchers who recognized the socio side of Lean, including guided learning through
iterative questioning. Lleo et al. (2017) and Lleo et al. (2020) acknowledged middle management
supports a continuous improvement environment through transformational behaviors and
characteristics, including being approachable, fair, and supportive. The researchers also
emphasize team building and subordinate development to increase autonomy. Solaimani et al.
(2019) reported several socio considerations for Lean, including coaching, learning culture, and
internal and external collaboration. The socio aspect of Lean does exist in the literature;
however, much less frequent than technical aspect.
Cultural Impact on Lean
The participants shared the culture can both support and inhibit efforts at Lean. Aligned
with the literature, the participants reported elements of the culture that supported Lean,
including appreciating the value of people, aligned with the socio features of Lean (Loyd et al.,
2020, Reynders et al., 2022), and continuous improvement aligned with the technical features of
Lean (Netland et al., 2020). Conversely, the participants shared characteristics of the culture that
inhibited lean practice, including failure to recognize Lean’s applicability to administrative areas
115

and a fear of exposing problems. The inhibiting aspects are directly linked to organizational
leaderships engagement.
An interesting finding, not common in the Lean literature, was the impact of multiple
cultures. The participants shared efforts to unify the various cultural artifacts to help the
organization adapt to environmental changes and assure long-term survival. Costanza et al.
(2016) studied the survival of 95 organizations and reported that an adaptive culture promotes
organizational flexibility to anticipate and overcome challenges ensuring survival.
Effective Mitigation Strategies
Participants shared a variety of strategies they have employed to mitigate barriers
encountered. They thought the strategies effectively increased leadership support and engaged
other members. Visualization was the one tool that was believed to be effective in both gaining
leadership support and engaging others. Visualization establishes a common understanding of
problems and the path forward. The literature mentions Value Stream Mapping as a popular
approach used for visualization (Funston, 2013; Hadid & Mansouri, 2014; Harolds, 2022; Jasti &
Kodali, 2014). However, none of the participants specifically mentioned VSM; instead, they
used the term visualization. Finally, there was mention of adapting tools used in manufacturing
for administration; however, the participants reported this strategy required a deep understanding
of the principle gained through long-term immersion in Lean. The primary technical strategies
reported related to visualization and alteration of manufacturing Lean tools for administration.
Other strategies concentrated on the socio aspect of Lean, including training, coaching,
and recognition. Participants shared creating a “safe space” where members could experiment
without the humiliation of failure. Additionally, they described questions to promote deep
learning; however, there was also a caution that not all members would respond well to that
116

approach, recognizing the individual approach needed. Participants also shared building
activities that would allow frequent small wins or successes that could be celebrated and
recognized as a strategy understood to extend motivation.
Participants reported strategies related to both the technical and the socio features of
Lean. Technical strategies included visualization and tool alteration, while socio strategies
focused on training, coaching, and recognition. Due to the variation of barriers, leaders should
consider employing both technical and socio strategies to ensure success.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations focus on organizational leadership engagement and the learning
process for Lean. During an organizational change, organizational leaders are critical to
providing a vision of the future and direction for getting there and must remain engaged
throughout the process. The first recommendation is to engage organizational leaders from the
beginning. However, organizational leaders may lack an accurate understanding of Lean leading
to the second recommendation of a comprehensive Lean training program. The final
recommendation encourages expanding traditional Lean training to include tools to mitigate
barriers and the socio aspects of Lean. The recommendations addressing the study findings are
discussed in the next section.
Recommendation 1: Engage Leadership From the Beginning
Organizational leadership engagement helps ensure organizational change success.
Organizational leaders define the vision, mission, and strategy to propel the organization forward
(Burke, 2018). Transitioning an organization from a traditional approach to Lean is an example
of an organizational change that requires involvement and commitment from all levels.
Additionally, middle management needs resources and support, including access to training,
117

coaching, direction, and financial and human resources, to implement the transition.
Organizational leaders need a proper understanding of Lean to provide direction and ensure the
necessary resources and support are available.
Organizational leaders should be the first to receive training to understand Lean
appropriately. The heightened understanding will support vision development, growth and
development of subordinates, and appropriate resource commitment. The study participants
reported barriers to organizational leadership, including a lack of Lean knowledge, a belief that
Lean did not apply to administration, and a desire to keep problems hidden. Gaining an
understanding of Lean would help overcome these barriers. Alhaqbani et al. (2016) reported lack
of leadership commitment impacted employee commitment, ultimately reducing the amount of
problem solving. Further, the researchers posited that a poor understanding of the purpose and
unawareness of the benefits of the change might cause the leadership’s lack of commitment.
Recommendation 2 will explain options to provide the necessary training for organizational
leadership.
Recommendation 2: Comprehensive Training Program for All Members of the
Organization
A training and development program that cascades through the organization must
consider the delivery capabilities, content, and delivery method. Cascading learning should start
at the top levels of the organization and flow to lower levels in sequence. Organizational leaders
need the understanding to help formulate the future vision (Burke, 2018) and to assess
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). A top-down approach allows experienced supervisors
to coach subordinates during daily activities as they learn (Ambrose et al., 2010).
118

The current level of Lean competence and teaching capacity determines the
organization’s capability to deliver training. The training content needs to be appropriate for the
organizational level and the individual learner’s skill level. Finally, the delivery method should
include classroom, hands-on application with coaching.
When organizations lack internal knowledge, they often engage external consultants. A
Google search of lean consulting companies returned over 17 million responses. Consultants
have partnered with academia, University of Kentucky True Lean Institute, employ subject
matter expert practitioners, Honsha and Jackson Management Group, LLC, and can range in size
from one person to a worldwide, multi-faceted consulting operation. Consultants offer a variety
of programs, including classes, coaching, and longer-term organization-wide consulting.
Financial estimates for consultant support can vary greatly and depend on the needed support
level.
If an organization does not have internal competence and capacity to teach, it must utilize
external resources. However, Holmemo and Ingvaldsen (2016) cautioned against external
resources without involving middle management. External resources should be limited to
increasing the skills and capabilities of internal members and should not be relied upon for
leading Lean initiatives over extended periods. The delivery method must be appropriate to the
content. Classroom training is most effective for knowledge and basic skill understanding, while
hands-on applications with coaching provide practical applications and builds motivation and
self-efficacy (Ambrose et al., 2010). As members gain experience, they shift from the learner to
the coach as the learning spreads throughout the organization. Organizational knowledge will
grow by establishing a structured learning program cascaded from the upper levels of the
organization.
119

Once a member gains a foundational level of knowledge, the learning ought to shift to
hands-on application with coaching. A tailored approach based on the individual skill and
motivation is most appropriate at this stage. Coaches should utilize questioning the encourage
deep thinking and reflection on the learner’s part. Additionally, the organization will see the
benefits of continuous improvement activities through quality improvements, efficiency gains, or
reduced lead-times. Members can be encouraged through recognition leading to increased
motivation for deeper learning. This cycle replicates process continuous improvement but with
human development through continuous learning.
Training and development should be strategic, continuous, and expansive. Training is
required to include all levels of the organization, starting at the top, with appropriate content.
Like Lean, the learning never ends, encouraging ongoing deeper study. Strategically scaffolded
learning provides a level of challenge to expand the learner’s knowledge and experience with a
coach’s support.
Recommendation 3: Expanded Training Content
In addition to a comprehensive training program that cascades throughout the
organization, the content needs to expand beyond traditional consultant classes which focus on
Lean tools and techniques. Participants mentioned visualization as a way to share a common
understanding. Visualization is a tool frequently taught in Lean programs; however, the lean
practitioner needs to recognize the difference between visualizing manufacturing and
administrative processes.
Training should also include the socio aspects and strategies to mitigate barriers. Socio
aspects include leadership styles, interpersonal skills, and emotional intelligence. Lean leaders
need to understand various leadership styles and when each style is appropriate. Situational
120

Leadership II offers a framework that has been studied in conjunction with Lean (Tortorella &
Fogliatto, 2017). The prevalence and variety of emotions expressed and mentioned in the
interviews strongly suggest the importance of the socio aspects of Lean. Recognizing the
importance of emotions also supports that leaders need an awareness and skill set to deal with the
emotions, both their own and their members.
In a personal conversation with a director of an academic Lean consultant organization,
the member scoffed at the suggestion of increasing the socio aspects of Lean into the teachings
indicating their program was under the engineering school, not business. Lean is primarily
studied as an operations management approach (Samuel et al., 2015). Before expanding Lean
training, a greater understanding of the socio aspects should be investigated, as suggested in the
Future Research section.
In summary, this study examined leaders’ behavior mitigating barriers when
implementing Lean in administrative areas. Lean consists of both socio and technical
components. Organizations need knowledge and experience of tools and techniques, how they
are applied in administration, and how to coach and lead Lean initiatives with support from
organizational leadership. Table 9 summarizes the study’s key findings, related literature, and
recommendations.

Table 9
Findings and Recommendations Crosswalk
Finding Literature support Recommendation
Learning should be
individualized and
scaffolded with a
combination of classroom,
hands-on experience, and
coaching.
Leadership styles should adjust considering the
follower’s experience and motivation level
(Ken Blanchard Companies, n.d; Whitehead,
2016).

Scaffolding reduces cognitive overload while
building self-efficacy (Ambrose et al., 2010).

R2: Establish a structured learning program
cascaded from the upper levels of the
organization and incorporates
individualized multiple delivery methods.

R3: Incorporate leadership strategies in
expanded training.

Organizational leadership
engagement is critical to
ensure success and
sustainability.
Organizational change needs leadership
engagement throughout (Burke, 2018).
R1, R2: Include organizational leadership in
the learning program with appropriate
content.

R1: Promote organizational leadership
engagement through company-level
objectives and recognition.

Enterprise-wide adoption
supports organizational
learning.
Teamwork supports continuous improvement
(Espíndola et al., 2019)

Lean applies at multiple levels, from individual
processes to enterprise-wide (Hopp &
Spearman, 2021)

R2: Train at all levels of the organization
with either internal or external resources.

121

Finding Literature support Recommendation
The literature
underrepresents the socio,
human, aspects of Lean;
however, the practice
emphasizes the
importance of the socio
aspects in mitigating the
barriers.
Essential aspects of Lean include coaching,
approachability, team orientation,
collaboration, and a learning culture (Lleo et
al., 2017; Lleo et al., 2020; Solaimani et al.,
2019).

Important socio aspects of Lean include coaching
through questions (Ferenhof et al., 2018).

R3: Incorporate socio aspects into a Lean
training and development program,
including practice.
Organizational culture can
both support and inhibit
Lean efforts.
Appreciating the value to people aligns with the
socio aspects of Lean (Loyd et al., 2020;
Reynders et al., 2022)

A culture of continuous improvement aligns with
the technical aspects of Lean (Netland et al.,
2020)

Adaptive cultures promote long-term
organizational survival (Costanza et al., 2016)

R3: Incorporate the socio aspect of Lean into
a Lean training and development program.
Mitigation strategies address
both the socio and
technical aspects of Lean.
These strategies help
alleviate organizational
leadership barriers and
increase member skills
and knowledge.
Visualization promotes a shared understanding of
problems and future direction (Funston, 2013;
Hadid & Mansouri, 2014; Harolds, 2022; Jasti
& Kodali, 2014).

Leadership styles should vary by job level and
phase of Lean implementation (Tortorella &
Fogliatto, 2017).
R3: Incorporate the socio aspects into the
lean training and development program,
including practice.

R2: Specific visualization training for all
organizational members.

122
123

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations and delimitations bind all research. As Creswell and Creswell (2018) defined,
limitations relate to items beyond the researcher’s control. Limitations of this study included
participants’ willingness to participate, memory accuracy, and ability to articulate their
behaviors. Limitations of the document analysis included the possible reflection of an ideal
rather than reality. Finally, this study concentrated on a single organization that may not
represent other organizations or administration areas.
Delimitations, determined by the researcher, outline the scope of a study by
differentiating between what the researcher will and will not include in the study (Naar, 2021).
This study was delimitated by the chosen organization, functions within the organization, and
interview participant level within the organization. Additionally, this study focused solely on
Lean knowledge, experience, and behavior. This study did not consider other aspects of the
middle manager’s role. Individuals not responsible for an administrative area or currently
employed by the organization were excluded from the study, thus limiting the number of
interviews. Finally, this study was conducted through the lens of Burke-Litwin’s model of
organizational change, focusing on middle management. Using other theories or other parts of
the organization may result in different findings.
Future Research
Researchers have studied Lean as a socio-technical approach; however, the literature
emphasizes the technical aspects of Lean, primarily in manufacturing. Additional study of the
socio aspects of Lean would provide insight, including the study by other disciplines such as
sociology, psychology, and education. Further investigation of the Lean technical tools usage
and adaption in administration areas would also benefit practice and could result in new tools or
124

expanded definitions. Finally, an intentional study of the intersection of academia, consultant,
and practitioners would develop a common language of barriers and strategies to mitigate the
barriers for both manufacturing and administration practices.
Connection to the USC Rossier Mission
The USC Rossier School of Education’s mission is to “prepare leaders to achieve
educational equity through practice, research and policy” (USC Rossier School of Education,
2022). The mission focuses on historically marginalized groups; this research expands traditional
learning to organizational learning for all members, from the staff level through the top level of
the organization. The study may benefit academia, industry, and practitioners, including
historically marginalized groups whose representation may be unique to the practice. The
cultural strengths of this study’s organization align with USC Rossier’s in appreciating the value
of people.
Conclusions
The literature on Lean predominantly focuses on the technical aspects and tools of
manufacturing, overlooking the human element. Although a few researchers have introduced the
concept of Lean as a socio-technical approach, the dominance of the technical over socio is
evident, with 37 technical practices and 17 socio practices (Hadid & Mansouri, 2014). Middle
managers are uniquely positioned in a Lean organization as a fulcrum balancing upper-level
management needs with staff needs, learning with teaching, and strategic objectives with day-to-
day execution. Understanding the interaction of middle managers with others in the organization
is important; however, it is critical to recognize middle managers as individual humans with
personal experiences. The continued emphasis on technical tools has created a fraternity-like
environment requiring members to survive a hell week experience, which lasts several years,
125

where repeated failure is guaranteed, and frustration runs rampant. Middle managers tasked with
implementing Lean must survive this experience while simultaneously leading others through it.
This study’s participants, all middle managers, openly shared their experiences and struggles
they encountered while learning, teaching, and practicing Lean in administrative areas.
Additionally, the study revealed an assortment of emotions expressed by the participants
emphasizing the human side of Lean that remains understudied. Organizations task middle
managers with transitioning to Lean without full leadership support, including engagement,
training, and resources. It is time we recognize middle managers as unique individuals and
personalize their development in Lean while providing necessary support and resources.

126

References
Aliyu, A. A., Singhry, I. M., Adamu, H. A. R. U. N. A., & Abubakar, M. M. (2015, December).
Ontology, epistemology and axiology in quantitative and qualitative research:
Elucidation of the research philosophical misconception. In Proceedings of the Academic
Conference: Mediterranean Publications & Research International on New Direction and
Uncommon (Vol. 2, No. 1).
Aij, K. H., & Teunissen, M. (2017). Lean leadership attributes: A systematic review of the
literature. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 31(7-8), 713–729.
https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/JHOM-12-2016-0245
Aij, K. H., Visse, M., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2015). Lean leadership: An ethnographic
study. Leadership in Health Services, 28(2), 119–134.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/scholarly-
journals/lean-leadership-ethnographic-study/docview/1676331195/se-2?accountid=14749
Alhaqbani, R., D. M., Savage, B. M., & Ries, J. (2016). The impact of middle management
commitment on improvement initiatives in public organisations. Business Process
Management Journal, 22(5), 924–938. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-01-2016-0018
Al-Haddad, S. & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model
for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234–262.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2013-0215
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.

127

Balle, B., G., Smalley, A., & Sobek, D. K. (2006). The Thinking Production System. Reflections,
7(2), 1–12.
Bhamu, J. & Sangwan, K. S. (2014). Lean manufacturing: Literature review and research issues.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(7), 876–940.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40.
Brown, B. (2021). Atlas of the heart: Mapping meaningful connection and the language of
human experience. Random House.
Burke, W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Sage.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/causal-
model-organizational-performance-change/docview/215258879/se-2?accountid=14749
Burke, W. W. & Noumair D. A. (2015). Organization development: A process of learning and
changing (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Chapter 10:
Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research design and methods: An applied
guide for the scholar-practitioner. Sage.
Chiarini. A. (2013). Chapter 8: Lean Office. In Lean organization: From the tools of the Toyota
Production System to lean office. Springer Verlag Italia.
128

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cooper, Y. (2017, June 1). Intersectionality. National Career Development Association.
https://www.ncda.org/aws/NCDA/pt/sd/news_article/139052/_PARENT/CC_layout_deta
ils/false
Costanza, D.P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeConsanza A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business
Psychology, 31, 361–381.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Cusumano, M., Holweg, M., Howell, J., Netland, T., Shah, R., Shook, J., Ward, P., & Womack,
J. (2021). Commentaries on “The Lenses of Lean.” Journal of Operations Management,
67(5), 627–639. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1138
Drohomeretski, E., Gouvea da Costa, S. E., Pinheiro de Lima, E., & Garbuio, P. A. da R. (2014).
Lean, Six Sigma and Lean Six Sigma: An analysis based on operations strategy.
International Journal of Production Research, 52(3), 804–824.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.842015
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). 10 things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22.
Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative
Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/14/
Engle, R. L., Lopez, E. R., Gormley, K. E., Chan, J. A., Charns, M. P., & Van Deusen Lukas, C.
(2017). What roles do middle managers play in implementation of innovative practices?
129

Health Care Management Review, 42(1), 14–27.
https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000090
Errida, A. & Lotfi, B. (2021). The determinants of organizational change management success:
Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business
Management, 13, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790211016273
Espíndola, S. C. N. L., Albuquerque, A. P. G., Xavier, L. A., Melo, F. J. C., & Medeiros, D. D.
(2019). The Standardization of administrative processes: A case study using continuous
improvement tool. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(4),
706–723. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2019.v16.n4.a15
Faller, P., Lundgren, H., & Marsick, V. (2020). Overview: Why and how does reflection matter
in workplace learning? Advances in Developing Human Resources, 22(3), 248–263.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320927295
Ferenhof, H., Da Cunha, A. H., Bonamigo, A., & Forcellini, F. A. (2018). Toyota Kata as a KM
solution to the inhibitors of implementing lean service in service companies. VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 48(3), 404–426.
https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-11-2017-0083
Ferrazzi, K., & Clementi, M. (2022, June 22). The great resignation stems from a great
exploration. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/06/the-great-resignation-
stems-from-a-great-exploration
Francis, M., Thomas, A., Fisher, R. & Mason-Jones, R. (2019). Author and institution citation
analysis of the lean literature. International Journal of Supply Chain and Operations
Resilience, 3(4). 330–352. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSCOR.2019.10020803
130

Freitas, R. C., Freitas, M. C. D., Menezes, G. G., & Odorczyk, R. S. (2018). Lean Office
contributions for organizational learning. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 31(5), 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-06-2017-0221
Fryer, A. K., Tucker, A. L., & Singer, S. J. (2018). The impact of middle manager affective
commitment on perceived improvement program implementation success. Health Care
Management Review, 43(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000174
Fullerton, R. R., Kennedy, F. A., & Widener, S. K. (2014). Lean manufacturing and firm
performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices.
Journal of Operations Management, 32(7-8), 414–428.
Funston. (2013). Lean quality: Application of lean tools to non-manufacturing, transactional
office environments in the medical device industry (UMI Number 1523465) [Master’s
thesis, California State University Dominguez Hills]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Galli, J. (2018). Change management models: A comparative analysis and concerns. IEEE
Engineering Management Review, 46(3), 124–132.
https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2018.2866860
Gelei, A., Losonci, D., & Matyusz, Z. (2015). Lean production and leadership attributes – the
case of Hungarian production managers. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 26(4), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-05-2013-0059
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what’s “right”. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (162–183). Allyn & Bacon.
Gupta, S., Sharma, M., & Vijaya, S. M. (2016). Lean services: a systematic review. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(8), 1025–1056. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2015-0032
131

Hadid, W., & Mansouri, S. A. (2014). The lean-performance relationship in services: A
theoretical model. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
34(6), 750–785. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-02-2013-0080
Hadid, W., Mansouri, S. A., & Gallear, D. (2016). Is lean service promising? A socio-technical
perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(6), 618–
642. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2015-0008
Harolds, Jay. (2022). Quality and Safety in Healthcare, Part LXXXVIII: Introduction to the
Toyota Production System [Advance on-line publication]. Clinical Nuclear Medicine.
https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000003718
Holmemo, M. D., & Ingvaldsen, J. A. (2016). Bypassing the dinosaurs? - How middle managers
become the missing link in lean implementation. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 27(12), 1332–1345. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1075876
Hopp, W. & Spearman, M. S. (2021). The lenses of lean: Visioning the science and practice of
efficiency. Journal of Operations Management, 67(5), 610–626.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1115
Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S., & Rane, S. B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-
12-2012-0014
Jasti,V. M. & Kodali, R. (2014). A literature review of empirical research methodology in lean
manufacturing. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(8),
1080–1122. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0169
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
132

Ken Blanchard Companies. (n.d.). Proven, time-tested leadership model. SLII® - A Situational
Approach to Leadership (kenblanchard.com)
Khalfallah, M. & Lakhal, L. (2021). The relationships between TQM, TPM, JIT and agile
manufacturing: An empirical study in industrial companies. TQM Journal, 33(8), 1735–
1752. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2020-0306
Kim, C., Spahlinger, D. A., Kin, J. M., & Billi, J. E. (2006). Lean health care: What can hospitals
learn from a world-class automaker? Journal of Hospital Medicine, 1(3), 191–199.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.68
Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1),
41–52. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/triumph-lean-production-system/docview/224963951/se-2?accountid=14749
Lameijer, B., Boer, H., Antony, J., & Does, R. J. M. (2021). Continuous improvement
implementation models: A reconciliation and holistic metamodel. Production Planning &
Control, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1974114
Latham, J. R. (2013). A framework for leading the transformation to performance excellence
Part II: CEO perspectives on leadership behaviors, individual leader characteristics, and
organizational culture. The Quality Management Journal, 20(3), 19–40.
Lleo, A., Viles, E., Jurburg, D., & Lomas, L. (2017). Strengthening employee participation and
commitment to continuous improvement through middle manager trustworthy
behaviours. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 28(9), 974–988.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1303872
Lleo, A., Viles, E., Jurburg, D., & Santos, J. (2020). Key middle manager trustworthy behaviours
that enhance operator participation in continuous improvement systems. International
133

Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 12(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-
10-2019-0118
Loyd, N., Harris, G., Gholston, S., & Berkowitz, D. (2020). Development of a lean assessment
tool and measuring the effect of culture from employee perception. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(7), 1439–1456.
Makwana, A. D. & Patange, G. S. (2021). A methodical literature review on application of Lean
& Six Sigma in various industries. Australian Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 19(1),
107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/14484846.2019.1585225
Manos, A., Sattler, M., & Alukal, G. (2006). Make healthcare lean. Quality Progress, 39(7), 24–
30. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/make-
healthcare-lean/docview/214764700/se-2?accountid=14749
May, M. (2005). Lean thinking for knowledge work. Quality Progress, 38(6), 33–39.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/lean-thinking-
knowledge-work/docview/214772076/se-2?accountid=14749
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design
and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Sociology. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved February
18, 2023, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociology
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. Sage.
Naar, D. (2021, April 20). What is delimitation in research? Examples of scope an delimitation.
Reference. https://www.reference.com/world-view/meaning-scope-delimitation-study-
3e1b555aedd388ea
134

Netland, T. H. (2016). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of
contingencies. International Journal of Production Research, 54(8), 2433–2448.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1096976
Netland, T. H., Powell, D. J., & Hines, P. (2020). Demystifying lean leadership. International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 11(3), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-07-2019-0076
Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Productivity Press.
(Original work published 1978).
Olivier, B. (2017). The use of mixed-methods research to diagnose the organizational
performance of a local government. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1453
Onyeneke, G. B., & Abe, T. (2021). The effect of change leadership on employee attitudinal
support for planned organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 34(2), 403–415. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/JOCM-08-2020-
0244
Parkes, A. (2015). Lean Management Genesis. Management, 19(2), 106–121.
https://doi.org/10.1515/manment-2015-0017
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research and
evaluation methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339-380). Sage.
Poksinska, B., Fialkowska-Filipek, M., & Engström, J. (2017). Does Lean healthcare improve
patient satisfaction? A mixed-method investigation into primary care. BMJ Quality &
Safety, 26(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004290
135

Poksinska, B., Swartling, D., & Drotz, E. (2013). The daily work of Lean leaders - lessons from
manufacturing and healthcare. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(8),
886–898. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.791098
Psomas, E. & Antony, J. (2019). Research gaps in Lean manufacturing: a systematic literature
review. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 36(5), 815–839.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-12-2017-0260
Reynders, P., Kumar, M., & Found, P. (2022). ‘Lean on me’: An integrative literature review on
the middle management role in lean. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
33(3–4), 318–354. https://doi-org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/14783363.2020.1842729
Saks, A. M. (2019). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement revisited. Journal
of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 6(1), 19–38.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-06-2018-0034
Samuel, D., Found, P., & Williams, S. J. (2015). How did the publication of the book The
Machine That Changed The World change management thinking? Exploring 25 years of
lean literature. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(10),
1386–1407. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2013-0555
Santos, J. M. D. (n.d.). The Machine That Changed the World - A book review. Retrieved June
20, 2022, from https://project-management.com/the-machine-that-changed-the-world-a-
book-review/
Schein, E. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, U., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social Cognitive Theory and Motivation. In The Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
136

Shah, R. & Ward, P. T. (2003). Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 21(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
6963(02)00108-0
Shinn, G. S. (2001). Intentional change by design. Quality Progress, 34(5), 46–51.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/magazines/intentional-change-design/docview/214768350/se-
2?accountid=14749
Smits, S. & Bowden, D. (2015). A perspective on leading and managing organizational change.
Economics and Business Review, 1(2), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2015.2.1
Solaimani, Veen, J. van der, Sobek II, D. K., Gulyaz, E., & Venugopal, V. (2019). On the
application of Lean principles and practices to innovation management: A systematic
review. TQM Journal, 31(6), 1064–1092. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-12-2018-0208
Spangenberg, H. & Theron, C. (2013). A critical review of the Burke-Litwin model of
leadership, change and performance. Management Dynamics, 22(2), 29–48.
Staats, B. R., Brunner, D. J., & Upton, D. M. (2011). Lean principles, learning, and knowledge
work: Evidence from a software services provider. Journal of Operations Management,
29(5), 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.11.005
Stapleton, F., Hendricks, J., Hagan, P., & DelBeccaro, M. (2009). Modifying the Toyota
Production System for Continuous Performance Improvement in an academic children’s
hospital. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 56(4), 799–813.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2009.05.015
Stone, K. B. (2012). Four decades of lean: a systematic literature review. International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, 3(2), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461211243702
137

Stone, K. B. (2015). Burke-Litwin Organizational Assessment Survey: Reliability and validity.
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 33–50.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-
journals/burke-litwin-organizational-assessment-survey/docview/1692916220/se-
2?accountid=14749
Tortorella, G., & Fogliatto, F. (2017). Implementation of lean manufacturing and situational
leadership styles: An empirical study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
38(7), 946–968. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-07-2016-0165
USC Rossier School of Education. (2022). About the USC Rossier School of Education: Mission
& values. https://rossier.usc.edu/about/mission-values
van Assen, M., F. (2018). The moderating effect of management behavior for Lean and process
improvement. Operations Management Research, 11, 1–13. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1007/s12063-018-0129-8
van Rossum, L., Aij, K. H., Simons, F. E., van der Eng, N., & ten Have, W. D. (2016). Lean
healthcare from a change management perspective. Journal of Health Organization and
Management, 30(3), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0090
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The
art and method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 51-59). The Free Press.
Whitehead, J. K. (2016, September 23). Directing, coaching, supporting & delegating are what?
Directing, Coaching, Supporting & Delegating Are What? - (johnkwhitehead.ca)
Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: A chronological consideration of reflective
practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2),
177–184. doi: 10.1080/14623940802005525
138

Womack, J., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: Based on the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5-million dollar 5-year study on the future of the
automobile. Rawson Associates.
Yamamoto, K., Milstead, M., & LIoyd, R. (2019). A review of the development of lean
manufacturing and related lean practices: The case of Toyota Production System and
managerial thinking. International Management Review, 15(2), 21–90.
Zigarmi, D. & Roberts, T. P. (2017). A test of three basic assumptions of Situational
Leadership® II Model and their implications for HRD practitioners. European Journal of
Training and Development, 41(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05-2016-0035

139

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss
my topic. Today’s interview should last about an hour. Will that still work for you?
Before I begin, I want to remind you of the details of my study. First, let’s review a few
items from the Information Sheet for Exempt Research I shared with you and answer any
questions about participating in this interview. I am a student at the University of Southern
California Rossier School of Education and conducting a study seeking to understand how leader
behaviors mitigate the barriers encountered during the implementation and sustainment of Lean
practices in administrative areas. I am talking to several leaders who have successfully
implemented Lean methodologies in their areas of responsibility.
I want to assure you that I am in the role of a researcher today. My goal is to understand
your perspective of your behaviors as a leader. My questions are not meant to judge or to
evaluate your behaviors but rather to understand. Also, I am not evaluating your performance as
a leader.
As previously stated in the Information Sheet for Exempt Research, this interview is
confidential. That means I will not share your name with anyone or include your name or
identifying details in the final summary. I will not share your comments with other participants,
organizational leaders, or other organization members. I will compile the data from this study in
my dissertation. I will use pseudonyms for all participants to protect confidentiality. I plan on
using some direct quotes from participants; however, I will not attribute them to a specific
individual. I will ensure that no comments or quotations can be linked to you.
140

There are opportunities for you to review your contributions. I can provide a copy of the
transcript for your review. Additionally, I can review any direct quotes before their inclusion in
the study. Finally, I am happy to share a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
The data from this study will be kept on a password protected laptop, and transcripts of
this interview will each have a unique password. Before we begin, let me check if you have any
questions. May I have your permission to record this interview?

141

Table A1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed
First, I would like to understand
your background and experience.
Tell me about your career at
[DGI, a pseudonym].
What departments have you
worked in?
What experience do you have prior
to [DGI, a pseudonym]?
Icebreaker
Please describe what you think the
leader’s role is in a Lean
organization?
How does a leaders role differ
between a Lean organization and
an organization that is not Lean?

RQ1
How did you learn about Lean
principles?
What exposure have you had to
manufacturing?
How were you taught?
What was the relationship between
you and the members that taught
you?
How has this experience shaped
your behaviors as a leader
today?

RQ1
How did you learn about being a
Lean leader?
How were you taught?
What was the relationship between
you and the members that taught
you?
Describe how the technical aspects
of Lean impact your leadership.
Describe how the socio aspects of
Lean impact your leadership.

RQ1
Can you describe any difference
you’ve encountered in
implementing Lean in
manufacturing and administrative
areas?

What is your opinion on why these
differences exist?
RQ2
RQ3
TRANSITION: Now I would like to focus specifically on Lean in administrative areas.
Please tell me about your experience
implementing Lean in
How has this experience shaped
you as a leader?
RQ1
142

Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed
administrative areas

What barriers have you encountered
implementing Lean in
administrative areas?
How did you overcome these
barriers?
How did you address repeat
barriers, or those that you
encountered more than once?

RQ3
How have you adjusted your
approach as a leader with various
barriers?
Can you talk a little more about the
different approaches you’ve
taken with each different barrier?

RQ3
How have the barriers differed
between the initial Lean
implementation and sustaining day
to day Lean practices?
How has your approach evolved as
your team becomes more
experienced in Lean?
Describe how you develop your
subordinate’s Lean skill?

RQ3
TRANSITION: Organizational culture can affect how a group operates. I’d like to talk now
about your thoughts on [DGI’s] culture with respect to Lean.

What elements of [DGI’s] culture
have supported your efforts to
implement Lean?

How have these elements
supported you?
Are there other elements that could
increase the support?

RQ2
What elements of [DGI’s] culture
have hindered your efforts to
implement Lean?

How have you overcome these? RQ2
RQ3
What, if any, changes in the
organizational culture have
impacted, positively or negatively,
your ability to implement Lean?

How did these changes impact
you?
RQ2
RQ3
Is there anything else you would like
to tell me about your experience as
a Lean leader in an administrative
area?

Wrap-up

143

Interview conclusion:
That concludes my questions for today. I wanted to allow you to share anything you think
I may not have covered or go back to any previous questions.
I do want to thank you again for taking the time to meet with me to share your thoughts
and experiences. What you have shared will help me in my study. I will conduct other interviews
and would like to know if you would be open to me reaching out again if I have additional
questions or need clarification on any items. Again, thank you for your participation in my study.

144

Appendix B: Document Analysis Protocol
The documents that were analyzed for this study included the following:
1. External job postings for middle managers in administrative areas (public website)
2. Publicly available organization values explanation (public website)
3. Publicly available documents related to Lean (public websites)
4. Internal document describing desired behaviors for various levels of the organization
Job posting prompts:
1. Do the job postings mention any required Lean experience? (RQ1)
2. Does the organization description within the job posting include aspects of Lean?
(RQ2)
3. Does the job posting include any requirements for coaching, problem-solving, waste
identification, customer value, Lean techniques (RQ1, RQ2)
Values prompts:
1. Do the description of the values reference any of the following Lean leader qualities:
coaching, problem-solving, waste identification, customer value, Lean principles,
Lean techniques? (RQ1, RQ2)
2. How do the value descriptions differentiate various levels of the organization,
including staff, first-line management, middle management, and executives,
concerning Lean? (RQ2)
Lean documents prompts:
1. How do the Lean documents represent the role of middle management? (RQ1, RQ2)
2. What middle management behaviors are indicated in the Lean documents? (RQ1,
RQ2)
145

Desired behavior document prompts:
1. How do middle manager’s behaviors differ from other supervisory levels of the
organization? (RQ1, RQ2)
2. How to the behaviors listed in the document compare to the behaviors identified in
the interviews? (RQ2)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

The exploration of lived experiences of Black women directors in student affairs who led others during COVID-19

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership

PDF

Understanding conditions for executive coaching success from the leader's point of view

PDF

Black women in tech: examining experiences in tech industry workplaces

PDF

Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: a promising practice study

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

PDF

Life sciences executive leadership’s perspective on organizational change

PDF

Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners

PDF

Barriers to the advancement of Black women and other underrepresented minorities on senior and executive leadership teams: a promising practice study

PDF

A call for transparency and accountability: continuous improvement in state education agency policy implementation

PDF

Implementing effective leadership development initiatives at the unit level in the Air Force: an innovation study

PDF

Impact of training on leader's ability to effectively lead during a crisis

PDF

Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap

PDF

Employee engagement in a post-COVID era: the mediating role of basic psychological need satisfaction in remote and hybrid work environments

PDF

Toxic leadership and U.S. Army special forces: a qualitative, phenomenological Study

Asset Metadata

Creator Reuter, Rachel Lynn (author)

Core Title How a leader's behaviors mitigate barriers encountered during lean implementation in administrative areas: a phenomenological study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/12/2023

Defense Date 03/28/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Administration,Barriers,lean,middle management,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email rachel.reuter44@gmail.com,rreuter@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113013966

Unique identifier UC113013966

Identifier etd-ReuterRach-11612.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReuterRach-11612

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Reuter, Rachel Lynn

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230413-usctheses-batch-1021 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu