Advertisement

Lean Thinking as a Learning Strategy at the Service of Global Development

  • Zahir MessaoudeneEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In recent years, global development has become a strategic issue for organizations. Its measurement criteria are economic, social and environmental. It is interested in contributing to the expectations of all stakeholders. How does the measurement of several criteria generate contradictions within the sustainability of global development? One of the answers to this question is associated with a set of organizational paradoxes. Indeed, paradoxes within organizations create tensions at the level of operational teams. However, human capital is a key to global development. Lean Thinking as a model of organizational learning is an answer to this problem. The sustainability of global development must integrate the fundamental values that underlie Lean Thinking, such as people development, building of a continuous improvement culture, management for problem-solving learning by work teams. This chapter will focus on the “learning by problem solving” dimension of Lean Thinking. This dimension will describe how a learning strategy enables sustainable development. This contribution will deal with an application around the principles of autonomy and responsibility of operational teams. Examples of French companies, that have implemented the concept of subsidiarity by problem solving, illustrate these principles. A new reference model, named “Problem Solving Pull for Learning Organization” incorporates this concept.

References

  1. Altshuller, G. (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity (1st ed.). Technical Innovation Ctr.Google Scholar
  2. Alves, A. C., et al. (2012). Lean production as promoter of thinkers to achieve companies’ agility. The Learning Organization, 19(3), 219–237.  https://doi.org/10.1108/0969647121121993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris C. (1994). On organizational learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Business. ISBN 0-631-21308-2.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (2002). Apprentissage organisationnel. Théorie, méthode, pratique (380 p.). Paris: DeBoeck Université.Google Scholar
  7. Autier, F. (2006).  Vous avez dit “capital humain?” . Gérer et comprendre, no. 85.Google Scholar
  8. Balogun J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.Google Scholar
  9. Clegg, S. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations [0018-7267(200205)55:5], 55(5), 483–503, 023425.Google Scholar
  10. Crozier, M., & Friedberg E. (1977). L’acteur et le Système: les contraintes de l’action collective. Seuil Eds.Google Scholar
  11. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, J., & Backoff, R. (1988). Organizational change in and out of dualities and paradox. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81–121). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. In Pitman series in business and public policy (276 p.).Google Scholar
  15. Guilmot, N., & Vas, V. (2015). Active and defensive strategies to cope with paradoxes in a change context: A middle managers perspective. In XXIVe Conférence Internationale de Management Stratégique.Google Scholar
  16. Imai, M. (1992). Kaizen: la clé de la compétitivité japonaise. Eyrolles Eds. ISBN-10: 2212035233.Google Scholar
  17. Jarzabkowski, P., & Spee, A. P. (2009). Strategy-as practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management, 11(1), 69–95.Google Scholar
  18. Johnston, S., & Selsky, J. W. (2006). Organization studies duality and paradox: Trust and duplicity in Japanese business practice, 27(2), 183–205.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605057666.
  19. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–30.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.Google Scholar
  21. Lüscher, L. S., Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.Google Scholar
  22. Mahieu, C. (2006). Le manager intermédiaire, intrapreneur: Les paradoxes d’une nouvelle identité managériale. Cadres-CFDT, 418.Google Scholar
  23. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
  24. Messaoudene, Z. (2015). Relations entre les pratiques d’amélioration continue et l’apprentissage organisationnel dans des PME françaises, 11e Congrès international de génie industriel, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1).  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.
  26. Perret, V. (2003). Les paradoxes du changement organisationnel, Le paradoxe: penser et gérer autrement les organisations (pp. 253–297). Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar
  27. Perret, V., & Josserand, E. (2003). Pratiques organisationnelles du paradoxe. Le paradoxe: Penser et gérer autrement les organisations, Ellipses (pp.165–187).Google Scholar
  28. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes towards an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794.Google Scholar
  29. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.Google Scholar
  30. Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Ballinger series on innovation and organizational change. In Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. New York, NY, USA: Ballinger Publishing Co./Harper & Row Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Sainsaulieu, R. (2007). Les mondes sociaux de l’entreprise. Collection Entreprise & Société, La découverte Ed., 408 p. ISBN-10: 2707150657.Google Scholar
  32. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  33. Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in manufacturing: The SMED system. Productivity Press Inc. ISBN-10: 0915299038.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. The Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2013). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.Google Scholar
  37. Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphose model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.Google Scholar
  38. Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. ISBN-10: 0743231643.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Management DepartmentECAM LyonLyon Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations