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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Altshuller, G. (1999). The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity (1st ed.). Technical Innovation Ctr.
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.
Argyris C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris C. (1994). On organizational learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Business. ISBN 0-631-21308-2.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (2002). Apprentissage organisationnel. Théorie, méthode, pratique (380 p.). Paris: DeBoeck Université.
Autier, F. (2006). Vous avez dit “capital humain?” . Gérer et comprendre, no. 85.
Balogun J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549.
Clegg, S. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations [0018-7267(200205)55:5], 55(5), 483–503, 023425.
Crozier, M., & Friedberg E. (1977). L’acteur et le Système: les contraintes de l’action collective. Seuil Eds.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2000). Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: The new language of change and pluralism. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 703–705.
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.
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. In Pitman series in business and public policy (276 p.).
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.
Imai, M. (1992). Kaizen: la clé de la compétitivité japonaise. Eyrolles Eds. ISBN-10: 2212035233.
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.
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.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–30.
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
Lüscher, L. S., Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
Mahieu, C. (2006). Le manager intermédiaire, intrapreneur: Les paradoxes d’une nouvelle identité managériale. Cadres-CFDT, 418.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
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.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.
Perret, V. (2003). Les paradoxes du changement organisationnel, Le paradoxe: penser et gérer autrement les organisations (pp. 253–297). Paris: Ellipses.
Perret, V., & Josserand, E. (2003). Pratiques organisationnelles du paradoxe. Le paradoxe: Penser et gérer autrement les organisations, Ellipses (pp.165–187).
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.
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.
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.
Sainsaulieu, R. (2007). Les mondes sociaux de l’entreprise. Collection Entreprise & Société, La découverte Ed., 408 p. ISBN-10: 2707150657.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in manufacturing: The SMED system. Productivity Press Inc. ISBN-10: 0915299038.
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.
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.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphose model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon & Schuster. ISBN-10: 0743231643.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Messaoudene, Z. (2019). Lean Thinking as a Learning Strategy at the Service of Global Development. In: Alves, A., Kahlen, FJ., Flumerfelt, S., Siriban-Manalang, A. (eds) Lean Engineering for Global Development. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13515-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13515-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13514-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13515-7
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)