Investigating the Implementation of Toyota’s Human Resources Management Practices in the Aerospace Industry
2. LP in the Aerospace Industry
3. Toyota’s HRM Approach
- Training: Toyota stipulates that employees can only perform and make improvements if they are trained. For this reason, it provides them with different training approaches to improve their skills, including classroom training (i.e., developing an understanding of basic concepts), on-the-job development (i.e., learning by doing) and personal training opportunities (i.e., training is requested by the employee to meet a specific learning need) . These trainings are designed to educate employees about the main challenges and opportunities of LP adoption and to provide them with the necessary knowledge on LP principles and methods . Once employees understand the objective of LP and learn how to use its tools and techniques, their participation in the continuous improvement process becomes easier .Classroom trainings are very helpful in providing initial awareness and information about basic LP concepts, particularly about the concepts of value-added activities and waste. This form of training, however, does not lead to culture change . Theory-based trainings cannot alter employees’ behaviors or habits and are unlikely to motivate them to make improvements or get involved in the new system . According to Toyota, actual learning comes from performing (on-the-job development), which enables employees to embrace the new work approach and truly understand LP and its goals [1,8]. Liker  emphasized that, especially in the beginning stages of lean transformation, there should be at least 80 percent doing and 20 percent classroom training and informing. Overall, adequate and effective training in the context of LP is training followed by immediately performing or performing followed by immediate training ;
- Communication: Toyota recognizes the importance of sincere communication and is aware that communication is a two-way street that requires information sharing between team members and managers. In this line, Alex Warren, the former Executive Vice President of Toyota Motor Corporation Kentucky stated: “At Toyota, we simply place the highest value on our team members and do the best we can to listen to them and incorporate their ideas into our planning process” . Toyota believes that two-way communication, especially face-to-face communication at Gemba (the place where the work occurs) is generally more effective since it provides opportunities to listen to employees and give them immediate feedback which can help in addressing process failures and improving tasks .It should be noted that the communication system at Toyota is extensive and multifaceted. Typical internal communication methods include newsletters, bulletin boards, meetings, instant messaging, and the like , allowing the sharing of ideas, information, and opinions. Toyota managers believe that communication is the key to keeping employees working effectively within the company ;
- Respect: According to Toyota, respect is the foundation of relationships with colleagues and with others . Toyota considers that everyone needs to be respected for both what they contribute and who they are, including their ideas and their cultural and personal beliefs. Toyota describes respect as follows: “through respect, we accept personal responsibility for what we do and build understanding with those around us” . More precisely, Toyota demonstrates and promotes respect by treating employees fairly and by providing them with continuous training to improve their skills and knowledge, and thus grow to their fullest potential [8,36]. Respect for employees at Toyota also means listening to and considering their opinions, valuing their abilities and qualities, and providing them with clear objectives to facilitate the achievement of their tasks [1,37].According to Toyota managers, important and true respect is shown through the problem-solving process . Through this process, supervisors and employees collaborate to identify the root causes of a problem and determine the optimal solution to eliminate it. Nevertheless, supervisors are not close enough to the problem to know all the facts and often rely on employees and their proficiency to find the best solution. This approach is considered as the highest form of respect because it demonstrates the value and importance placed by the company on the employees’ knowledge and role . On the other hand, there are two major elements that are seen as disrespectful in the context of LP and should be avoided: (1) treating employees as if they are wasting their time, and (2) ignoring their contributions [1,39]. Respect is, therefore, a pivotal feature of LP philosophy ;
- Empowerment: Toyota takes employee empowerment very seriously, recognizing that this practice leads workers to reach their full potential, and thus make the greatest contribution possible [1,41]. Empowering employees consists in delegating certain functions and tasks to them and giving them the autonomy they need to do their job . For example, they are usually asked to eliminate waste, solve work-related problems, prevent new problems from occurring, and enhance productivity, among others [43,44]. In other words, they are asked to be proactive and find ways to improve the company instead of waiting for the manager to direct them all the time . Empowerment is important because it promotes ideas, creativity, and innovations in the workplace . Another example of empowerment at Toyota is that employees can stop the production line in the event of a problem so that defects are not included in the final product [16,36]. For this purpose, the role of the supervisors is twofold: (1) they should teach employees to stop the line when a defect occurs and (2) they should involve employees in discovering and correcting the root cause of the defect. In this way, any worker can stop the line at the right time, whenever necessary .Overall, at Toyota, employees are not only empowered to find ways to improve the organization, but they are also provided the framework and coaching to be successful at it;
- Job security: Toyota is dedicated to ensuring the long-term job security of its employees: “when you work for Toyota, you have job security” . Its HR department plays a major part in ensuring job security through its advanced methods that allow for hiring the right employees and forecasting workforce needs . Companies usually hire employees to fill an immediate need, which may be considered as a successful short-term strategy. Toyota’s method, however, seeks to align the competencies needed by the organization with those of the candidate (i.e., abilities and skills). This allows the company to successfully meet both the immediate need and the characteristics required to move employees into new roles and positions, thereby ensuring long-term job security . Toyota management believes that good results are associated with employment security and considers this security alleviates employee concerns about the company’s transformation and generates a strong workforce commitment that drives them to be involved in LP [47,48,49];
- Recognition: This practice is crucially important in boosting morale and creating goodwill between employees and managers . In that sense, Toyota takes great interest in reward/recognition programs to ensure that its employees remain loyal to the organization and aligned with its goals. At Toyota, recognition/rewards are not individual as they are in most companies, but rather group-based, seeking to build team spirit [51,52]. Moreover, rewards tend to be increasingly process-oriented rather than results-oriented, and include small funds for team activities, group performance bonuses and quality circle awards . Even though rewards for creative ideas, suggestions, or opinions may, in most cases, be symbolic, they are needed to motivate employees to continuously make improvements in their workplace [1,43];
- Supervisor/manager support: One of the reasons LP works at Toyota is that all members support each other [51,53]. Employees working in teams support each other in accomplishing common tasks, and management supports these teams by providing them with the necessary resources (e.g., time and materials) to actively achieve their objectives . Toyota promotes teamwork, particularly in problem-solving because it believes that teams have better insights into the cause of the problem and can come up with effective solutions and improvement suggestions. Here, the supervisor’s role is to provide support to solve the problem and encourage cooperation among team members [8,36]. In this regard, Toyota elaborated several strategies to support teamwork, among which we find: cross-functional work teams, where employees with different functional expertise work together to achieve a common goal, and the team action plan which assigns specific instructions to each team member to perform tasks efficiently [1,8,55].In reference to Toyota, Liker  pointed out that management takes seriously its responsibility to effectively support employees and help them get involved in the change;
- Fairness: Fairness at work is among the factors that allow Toyota to succeed [56,57]. Its LP culture based on equal and fair treatment pushes supervisors/managers to treat everyone fairly at all times and under all circumstances [58,59]. Fairness at Toyota encompasses multiple aspects (e.g., compensation, working conditions and environment, equipment and materials, and personal treatment) and is demonstrated in several ways. For instance, employees cannot be promoted or receive pay raises without HR approval because Toyota believes that if employee compensation and promotion are determined solely by the supervisor, individuals may have difficulty understanding and trusting the company’s promotion policy, which may affect their sense of belonging . Moreover, dissimilar from most companies where HR personnel spend most of their time in front of a computer screen, at Toyota, HR staff also make visits to different departments to verify that everyone is treated fairly on the job and works under the right conditions [8,36].Toyota’s approach is to create human resource systems and policies that enforce fairness in the workplace in order to incentivize employees to not only identify problems but also take responsibility to solve them . In such a fair work environment, employees tend to be more responsive and more involved within the company [36,60];
- Occupational health and safety (OHS): Toyota managers place a high priority on employees’ health and safety [8,55,61]. They promote preventive safety measures, safety awareness and ergonomic awareness to alert employees of abnormalities with potential health and safety consequences . They also implemented various formal mechanisms, such as health and safety committees that respond on the same day when a health or safety issue occurs . Moreover, at Toyota, safety meetings between employees and their supervisors are scheduled on a daily basis at the beginning of the shift. These group meetings last five minutes, a period during which the production line is stopped in order to communicate safety information and discuss work-related hazards [8,62]. The purpose is, on the one hand, to keep all employees focused on safety, and on the other hand to allow group leaders to find out if there are any issues or concerns to report on the company dashboard. The information listed in this dashboard is reviewed monthly during each department’s safety meeting and then shared with all department managers. This approach serves to hold managers and group leaders accountable . Toyota makes major efforts to ensure that employees are physically safe and mentally healthy in their workplaces so that they can be involved in making improvements . The focus of Toyota on occupational safety and health stems from the fact that, without it, employees cannot be truly committed and involved in the LP project .
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Research Design
4.2. Data Analysis
5. Research Findings
- Training: Respondents reported that they had attended several forms of training within the company, including (1) classroom-based training, which is typically designed for a small group of employees and often focuses on developing basic knowledge and skills, (2) experiential learning, where employees learn by doing the tasks, and (3) individual training, designed to develop a specific skill or behavior related to the employee’s work. According to our participants, many of the trainings they received were related to health and safety, quality, technical aspects, and to the LP project in general. It is important to note here that we found some differences between the trainings received by office and production workers. Production employees attended a variety of trainings that aim to facilitate their understanding of the LP philosophy, including lectures, demonstration videos, hands-on activities, and case studies. As in Toyota, employees confirmed that they are applying the concepts learned in the workplace: “during the training sessions, you consider what you are actually doing on the shop floor [...] after those trainings, you put the knowledge into practice”. On the other hand, office employees received less training on LP: “there is not a lot of training or understanding on LP,” resulting in poor comprehension of the purpose of the LP project. Some of them believed that LP tools need to be further explained by referring in particular to the dashboard: “we should understand what exactly is the dashboard and why we need it, so that, at the meetings, we will not be mere spectators, we will be able to participate in filling it out and continuously improving it,” “we received courses about LP, and our manager asked questions about what is LP and how to fill in the LP dashboard, [...] but I still think that this is not well communicated or explained”. Although the components of the dashboard (health and safety, quality, productivity, human development, and costs) are discussed during the team meetings, its objectives and related key performance indicators are not fully explained to all office employees. Only a small number of employees from each team is selected by the company to receive appropriate training on the dashboard in order to be able to manage, monitor, and update it. Another reason why office employees tend to have difficulties understanding LP is that, although they are trained on some of its tools (e.g., 5S is a system to reduce waste and optimize productivity through maintaining a clean and orderly workplace , and standardized work is a process for documenting the steps of a job task and the sequence in which those must be completed ); these learnings are usually not applied in practice due to reasons such as non-prioritization of these tools in the execution of their tasks, lack of awareness of the use of these tools, and lack of follow-up by supervisors and management: “the tools we learned often do not become our priorities and are put aside due to lack of time, lack of resources, lack of all sorts of things,” “there are tools to improve the workplace, but there is no follow-up or involvement from the company”;
- Communication: Interviewees indicated the existence of good internal communication within the company, with a difference in its implementation among office and production employees. Office employees reported that they should attend daily morning meetings to exchange information with their colleagues and supervisor, and discuss work-related issues: “during the meetings, we review all the problems and situations we face during the day”. During these meetings, employees may request assistance with their workload and ask for information that may help them complete their tasks on time, thus avoiding waste of time and resources. Moreover, office employees stated that the feedback received from their supervisors was useful for achieving their tasks. Other than in meetings, however, this feedback was not always immediate since it took place mostly over email. In contrast, production employees were not required to attend morning meetings, as communication among co-workers or with the supervisor typically occurred face-to-face on the shop floor to address work-related issues or improve the performance of their work duties. Moreover, they stated that they can easily communicate with their supervisors at any time if they need clarification or assistance in the accomplishment of their work: “our manager listens to our concerns and understands our issues,” “supervisors often understand everything we say because they are with us on the shop floor; we talk to them when we have a problem, and they help us with our work”. Production employees considered that the information communicated by their supervisor was valuable and useful because it allowed the production cycle to run smoothly and effectively;
- Respect: Several interviewees reported feeling respected in the workplace, and most of them never experienced any problems in this regard. Although there may be differences of opinion regarding a particular issue or way of working, respondents revealed that, ultimately, everyone respects each other: “I think that respect is there all the time,” “we can’t agree on everything, there are different points of view, but in the end, we all respect each other’s points of view, and we all respect each other”. Respect is demonstrated by professional behaviors such as not talking down to employees, being understanding, listening to their opinions, and considering their ideas. For instance, when a complicated issue arises, whether for office or production employees, supervisors often interact with them to get their input and work out a solution together. Moreover, when an employee makes an error or oversight (e.g., failing to complete an urgent task on time, missing an important meeting, or not communicating critical information on schedule), the reaction of supervisors is professional and polite (e.g., using appropriate language and the correct tone of voice), focusing on understanding the reasons to quickly address the problem. Finally, interviewees indicated that respect should be mutual to create a positive atmosphere at work, and hence enhance the performance and productivity of all organization members;
- Supervisor/manager support: All interviewees recognized that they were supported in accomplishing their work in meaningful ways: “we are supported by our management [...] this helps us to do our work and perform better”. Respondents indicated that the support of their managers/supervisors can be presented in different forms, either by providing them with the tools they need to carry out their tasks correctly, by advising and guiding them, or by referring them to the right persons who can help with their issues. They furthermore stated that seeing their supervisors do their best to support them increases their willingness to address ongoing issues. Mutual support between co-workers was also pointed out by the interviewees who underlined that the company fosters this way of working to consolidate relationships in the workplace and thus achieve maximum efficiency.Regarding the worker category, production employees work as a team and cooperate with each other to solve problems and get the job completed in time. New hires or less experienced employees often seek help and guidance on complex tasks from more senior team members: “if I have a work problem, I will go to the more experienced co-workers and ask if they did that task before, how exactly they did it; I will ask for help”. Moreover, production employees reported that their supervisor was usually present on the shop floor to monitor the progress of their tasks, observe how they carry out their work, and assist them when necessary. The supervisor ensures that employees have the necessary tools, products, and parts to complete their job. Office employees also frequently work in teams. The latter stated that technical support comes more frequently from their peers than from their supervisors: “I will go and ask for support from my co-workers, I will not go to my supervisor all the time”. However, they also relied on their supervisor when it comes to coordinating work and escalating issues that require higher-level support;
- Fairness: According to our participants, employees are all equally treated: “we are all treated the same way,” “all people are equal, and all people are subject to the same rules”. One of the processes that the company under study implemented to ensure fairness in the workplace was the performance management process (PMP). PMP is a process by which supervisors and employees meet annually to evaluate employees’ performance and discuss their accomplishments and overall contribution to the organization. Following these meetings, employees are asked to perform a self-evaluation rating, which is then reviewed by the HR department and management to fairly determine salary increases. Another way fairness is put in place by the company is by providing employees at a similar job level with the same benefits and resources, including equipment, physical workspace, and working conditions.Interviewees stated that their company promotes fairness to avoid conflicts and tensions in the workplace. In other words, if employees perceive that management favors one worker over another, non-cooperative behaviors may emerge, and employees’ continuous improvement initiatives and efforts may be reduced;
- Occupational health and safety (OHS): Our participants perceived that their company is concerned with occupational health and safety issues and is well-equipped to provide a safe workplace: “the company takes employee health and safety seriously,” “we see that health and safety is an important aspect of our company, and that many actions are taken in this area”. Respondents articulated that the establishment of OHS within the company is reflected in several ways. For example, OHS is the first item presented in the dashboard and the first point addressed in group meetings. Two major questions are asked at the meetings regarding this item. The first question is: “did you observe any safety issues or unsafe acts?” When there is a report about an OHS-related concern (e.g., not enough fire extinguishers available, presence of chemicals or other hazardous materials in the office, expired items in the first aid kit), the staff responsible for the dashboard informs the health and safety committee to take the necessary actions. The objective of this question is to involve employees in OHS and raise their awareness. The second question (i.e., “did an incident or accident occur the previous day?”) is used to keep a record of incidents and accidents. Each time an employee reports an accident/incident, the dashboard is updated accordingly. The supervisor uses this information to prepare monthly reports for the health and safety committee. This allows the company to monitor the number of incidents and accidents occurring on a monthly basis, determine if there were improvements or not in the OHS aspect, and take more corrective actions when there is an increasing trend.Given that production employees are exposed to more potential hazards than office employees, they do not have to wait for meetings to report an OHS issue but can inform their supervisor immediately upon its occurrence in order to be addressed in the shortest time possible: “when we flag issues regarding OHS, our supervisors listen to us and often fix them right away; there are no delays with safety”.Finally, both employee categories reported that there are extensive actions and discussions about health and safety within the company to sensitize and render everyone more responsible: “there is a lot of discussion about health and safety, a lot,” “the majority of the emails we receive from the company refer to health and safety”.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Determine the research objectives
|Toyota’s HRM practices were conceived in the automotive industry. The adoption of these practices may therefore require some tweaking when the target company is from a different industry. In this work, we set to investigate the implementation of Toyota’s HRM practices in one of the largest aerospace companies in Canada. The objective of our research is twofold:|
Identify which of Toyota’s HRM practices are adopted by the target company
Explore how these HRM practices are implemented
Develop an interview guide
|In addressing our research objectives, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 employees from the target company. For this purpose, we developed an interview guide to explore the implementation of Toyota’s HRM practices. The interview guide helped us direct the conversation and focus on the topics we want to discuss. The guide included two types of questions:|
General and open-ended questions to gather maximum data about our research topic (e.g., How would you describe the LP project that you are experiencing in the organization? What were the management practices that fostered your commitment to LP? What practices does your supervisor adopt to enhance and/or maintain this commitment?)
Specific questions about HRM practices (e.g., Do you receive training within the company? What kind of trainings do you receive? How are these trainings implemented by the company? Could you give some examples of real-life situations within the organization?)
Before starting the interviews, we pre-tested our interview guide with employees of the company where we conducted the interviews and readjusted it to ensure that the questions were clear to our participants.
Meet participants and collect data
|Interviews were conducted face-to-face, were recorded, and lasted approximately 1 h.|
Before the questions were asked, we explained to the interviewees the purpose of our research. We also gave a brief introduction to the Lean Production system to make sure that respondents knew what the LP was.
We asked participants for their permission to record their responses and explained the reasons for the recording. The interviews did not begin until a consent form approved by the ethics committee of Polytechnique Montréal had been signed by the participants.
Then, we proceeded to ask the questions included in our interview guide, starting with general and open-ended questions to progressively ask more specific questions about the implementation details of HRM practices.
We ended our interviews by asking participants if they wanted to add any information or aspects that were not discussed. Finally, we thanked each participant for their time and the information they provided.
|After gathering the data from the interviews, data analysis consisted of the following steps:|
We transcribed each interview in its entirety by repeatedly listening to the audio recordings.
Each transcript was then used to identify the information relevant to our research objectives and discard the rest (e.g., content that is out of context).
We organized and structured the collected information using the three coding techniques proposed by Strauss and Corbin . With open coding, we broke down the data into discrete parts and created codes to label them (examples of emerged codes referring to HRM practices: communication, information exchange, training, professional support, personal support, and fairness). With axial coding, we combined codes with similar meaning (e.g., communication-information exchange). Lastly, we used selective coding to determine the final codes related to our research topic.
|The data analysis step produced several HRM practices|
We found six of Toyota’s HRM practices adopted by the company under study, namely: training, communication, respect, supervisor/manager support, fairness, and occupational health and safety.
For each one of these HRM practices, we described the strategies used for its implementation in the target company. For more details on how these practices are implemented, please see Section 5.
Discuss findings and compare with others
|Finally, we discussed our findings, provided explanations as to why some of Toyota’s HRM practices were adopted by the target company while others were not, and assessed the implementations of adopted practices, comparing their implementation details with those proposed by Toyota and considered potential reasons behind the different implementations. We furthermore argued the implications of our findings in this aerospace company with respect to the whole industry and compared them with other works. Briefly:|
In response to our first research objective, our results showed that not all Toyota’s HRM practices were adopted by the company under study.
In response to our second research objective, we found that some of the adopted practices were not implemented in the same way as Toyota.
Our findings are consistent with prior work studying LP in the aerospace industry (Martínez-Jurado et al. ), which highlighted the fact that the aerospace industry adopts some of Toyota’s HRM practices (e.g., training, communication) although there are differences in their implementation; we went a step further and documented a number of these differences.
- Liker, J.K. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2004; p. 352. ISBN 0071392319. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, S.; Low, S.P. Toyota Way style human resource management in large Chinese construction firms: A qualitative study. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2015, 15, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Womack, J.P.; Jones, D.T.; Roos, D. The Machine That Changed the World; Rawson Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 273–287. ISBN 9780743299794. [Google Scholar]
- Madsen, D.Ø.; Berg, T.; Stenheim, T.; Moum, J.V.; Bordewich, I.O.; Storsveen, M. The Long-term Sustainability of Lean as a Management Practice: Survey Evidence on Diffusion and Use of the Concept in Norway in the Period 2015–2017. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ohno, T. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production; CRC Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1988; p. 152. ISBN 978-0-915299-14-0. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez-Jurado, P.J.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Gómez, P.J. HR management during lean production adoption. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 742–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palaniswamy, R. Productivity Improvement by Reducing Waiting Time and Over-production Using Lean Manufacturing Technique. J. Text. Appar. Technol. Manag. 2021, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Liker, J.K.; Hoseus, M. Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way, 1st ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2008; p. 562. ISBN 9780071492171. [Google Scholar]
- Magnani, F.; Carbone, V.; Moatti, V. The human dimension of lean: A literature review. Supply Chain Forum Int. J. 2019, 20, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hines, P.; Taylor, D.; Walsh, A. The Lean journey: Have we got it wrong? Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2020, 31, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearce, A.; Pons, D.J. Implementing Lean Practices: Managing the Transformation Risks. J. Ind. Eng. 2013, 2013, 790291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Shang, G.; Pheng, L.S. The adoption of Toyota Way principles in large Chinese construction firms. J. Technol. Manag. China 2012, 7, 291–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadid, W.; Mansouri, S.A.; Gallear, D. Is lean service promising? A socio-technical perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2016, 36, 618–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Beale, J. Employee motivation to adopt Lean behaviours: Individual-level antecedents. Rev. Adm. FACES J. 2007, 6, 11–31. [Google Scholar]
- Benkarim, A.; Imbeau, D. Organizational Commitment and Lean Sustainability: Literature Review and Directions for Future Research. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emiliani, B.; Stec, D.J.; Grasso, L.; Stodder, J. Better Thinking, Better Results: Case Study and Analysis of an Enterprise-Wide Lean Transformation, 2nd ed.; Center for Lean Business Management: Kensington, CT, USA, 2007; p. 313. ISBN 0972259120. [Google Scholar]
- Wincel, J.P.; Kull, T.J. People, Process, and Culture: Lean Manufacturing in the Real World, 1st ed.; Productivity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; p. 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vukadinovic, S.; Macuzic, I.; Djapan, M.; Milosevic, M. Early management of human factors in lean industrial systems. Saf. Sci. 2019, 119, 392–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonavia, T.; Marin-Garcia, J.A. Integrating human resource management into lean production and their impact on organizational performance. Int. J. Manpow. 2011, 32, 923–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardon, N.; Bribiescas, F. Respect for people: The forgotten principle in lean manufacturing implementation. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
- Signoretti, A.; Sacchetti, S. Lean HRM practices in work integration social enterprises: Moving towards social lean production. Evidence from Italian case studies. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2020, 91, 545–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marodin, G.A.; Saurin, T.A. Implementing lean production systems: Research areas and opportunities for future studies. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 6663–6680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasti, N.V.K.; Kodali, R. Lean production: Literature review and trends. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2015, 53, 867–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benkarim, A.; Imbeau, D. Exploring Lean HRM Practices in the Aerospace Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crute, V.; Ward, Y.; Brown, S.; Graves, A. Implementing Lean in aerospace—Challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges. Technovation 2003, 23, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amrani, A.; Ducq, Y. Lean practices implementation in aerospace based on sector characteristics: Methodology and case study. Prod. Plan. Control 2020, 31, 1313–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Jurado, P.J.; Moyano-Fuentes, J. Key determinants of lean production adoption: Evidence from the aerospace sector. Prod. Plan. Control 2014, 25, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozdogan, K. Evolution of the lean enterprise system: A critical synthesis and agenda for the future. In Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering; Blockley, R., Shyy, W., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2010; Volume 6, pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-0-470-75440-5. [Google Scholar]
- Bharadwaj, V.N.; Shashank, P.S.; Harish, M.; Garre, P. A Review On Lean Manufacturing to Aerospace Industry. Int. J. Eng. Res. Gen. Sci. 2015, 3, 429–439. [Google Scholar]
- Theckedath, D. The Canadian Aerospace Industry and the Role of the Federal Government; Library of Parliament: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2013; p. i-10. [Google Scholar]
- Secchi, R.; Camuffo, A. Mitigating the risk of failure in lean banking implementation: The role of knowledge codification. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 1036–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouranta, N.; Psomas, E.; Antony, J. Human factors involved in lean management: A systematic literature review. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2021, 33, 1113–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, L.; Araújo, A.; Ávila, P.; Castro, H.; Putnik, G. Evaluation of the relation between lean manufacturing, industry 4.0, and sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Soliman, M.H.A. What You Will Not Get from Certifications & Credentials. 2015. Available online: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4099.6324 (accessed on 2 May 2022).
- Toyota Global Site. Available online: https://www.toyota.com.cy/world-of-toyota/this-is-toyota/the-toyota-way (accessed on 10 March 2022).
- Liker, J.K.; Convis, G.L. Toyota Way to Lean Leadership: Achieving and Sustaining Excellence through Leadership Development; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780071780780. [Google Scholar]
- Orzen, M.A.; Paider, T.A. The Lean IT Field Guide: A Roadmap for Your Transformation, 1st ed.; Productivity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Womack, J. Respect for people. Lean Enterprise Institute. Available online: http://www.lean.org/womack/DisplayObject.cfm?o=755 (accessed on 27 May 2022).
- Coetzee, R.; Van Der Merwe, K.; Van Dyk, L. Lean implementation strategies: How are the Toyota way principles addressed? S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2016, 27, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bauer, H.; Brandl, F.; Lock, C.; Reinhart, G. Integration of Industrie 4.0 in lean manufacturing learning factories. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 23, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pal, S. Science and Management, Toyota Production System (TPS)—Applications and Benefits for Indian Pump and Motor Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study. Int. J. Res. Eng. Sci. Manag. 2019, 2, 192–198. [Google Scholar]
- Doustar, S.M.; Astaneh, M.R.; Balalami, M.K. Human Resource Empowerment in Lean Manufacturing. Int. J. Innov. Res. Educ. Sci. 2014, 1, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- McMahon, T.A. Lean Journey. Available online: http://www.aleanjourney.com/2014/06/10-ways-to-show-respect-for-people.html (accessed on 10 May 2022).
- Olivella, J.; Cuatrecasas, L.; Gavilan, N. Work organisation practices for lean production. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2008, 19, 798–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmold, M. Lean Management and New Work Concepts. In New Work, Transformational and Virtual Leadership, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, S.; Low, S.P. Lean Construction Management, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 390. ISBN 978-981-287-013-1. [Google Scholar]
- Liker, J.K. Le Modèle Toyota: 14 Principes qui Feront la Réussite de Votre Entreprise; Pearson Education: Paris, France, 2009; ISBN 9782744073908. [Google Scholar]
- Saurin, T.A.; Tortorella, G.L.; Soliman, M.; Garza-Reyes, J.A. Lean production myths: An exploratory study. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020, 32, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, O.P.; Nepal, B.; Goel, P.S.; Jain, R.; Mohanty, R.P. Insights and learnings from lean manufacturing implementation practices. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2010, 6, 398–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, R.B. Recognizing and Rewarding Employees; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2000; p. 256. ISBN 0071356177. [Google Scholar]
- Liker, J.K.; Morgan, J.M. The Toyota Way in Services: The Case of Lean Product Development. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2006, 20, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sakikawa, T. Organizational Resilience and Organizational Culture. J. Strateg. Manag. Stud. 2022, 13, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmold, M. Lean Management and Kaizen: Fundamentals from Cases and Examples in Operations and Supply Chain Management, 1st ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; p. xxiii-188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worley, J.; Doolen, T. The role of communication and management support in a lean manufacturing implementation. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Liker, J.K.; Hoseus, M. Human resource development in Toyota culture. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 2010, 10, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Najem, M.; Dhakal, H.; Bennett, N. The role of culture and leadership in lean transformation: A review and assessment model. Int. J. Lean Think. 2012, 3, 119–138. [Google Scholar]
- Husar, M. Corporate Culture: Toyota’s Secret, Competitive Advantage; General Motors Internal Paper. Available online: http://www.bobemiliani.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/husar_nummi.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2022).
- Convis, G. Role of management in a lean manufacturing environment. Automot. Manuf. Prod. 2001, 7, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Marksberry, P. The Modern Theory of the Toyota Production System: A Systems Inquiry of the World’s Most Emulated and Profitable Management System, 1st ed.; Productivity Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; p. 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulagouas, W.; García-Herrero, S.; Chaib, R.; García, S.H.; Djebabra, M. On the contribution to the alignment during an organizational change: Measurement of job satisfaction with working conditions. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 76, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abouhenidi, H.M. Safety and Ergonomics in Toyota Company. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2014, 5, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
- Alpenberg, J.; Scarbrough, D.P. Culture and the Toyota Production System Archetype: A Preliminary Assessment; Växjö University Press: Växjö, Sweden, 2009; ISBN 978-91-7636-667-7. [Google Scholar]
- Kemparaj, U.; Chavan, S. Qualitative research: A brief description. Indian J. Med. Sci. 2013, 67, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernard, H.R.; Wutich, A.; Ryan, G.W. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016; p. 576. ISBN 9781483344386. [Google Scholar]
- Hermanowicz, J.C. The great interview: 25 strategies for studying people in bed. Qual. Sociol. 2002, 25, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; p. 488. ISBN 978-1-5063-3020-4. [Google Scholar]
- Kurdve, M.; Zackrisson, M.; Wiktorsson, M.; Harlin, U. Lean and green integration into production system models—Experiences from Swedish industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 85, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foris, D.; Florescu, A.; Foris, T.; Barabas, S. Improving the management of tourist destinations: A new approach to strategic management at the DMO level by integrating lean techniques. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rymaszewska, A.D. The challenges of lean manufacturing implementation in SMEs. Benchmarking Int. J. 2014, 21, 987–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinis-Carvalho, J. The role of lean training in lean implementation. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 32, 441–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingaldi, M.; Dziuba, S.T.; Cierniak-Emerych, A. Analysis of problems during implementation of Lean Manufacturing elements. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27–29 November 2018; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 183, p. 01004. [Google Scholar]
- Swank, C.K. The lean service machine. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
- Aij, K.H.; Teunissen, M. Lean leadership attributes: A systematic review of the literature. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2017, 31, 713–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Alnadi, M.; McLaughlin, P. Critical success factors of lean six sigma from leaders’ perspective. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2021, 12, 1073–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.S.; Ohlinger, J.; Rusk, C.; Delmore, P.; Ittmann, P.; on behalf of the CARE Group. Implementing potentially better practices for multidisciplinary team building: Creating a neonatal intensive care unit culture of collaboration. Pediatrics 2003, 111, e482–e488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheah, S.; Li, S.; Ho, Y.P. Mutual support, role breadth self-efficacy, and sustainable job performance of workers in young firms. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Samuel, E.H.; Matthew, O.T. Examining Team Communication and Mutual Support as Drivers of Work Performance among Team Members. Asian Res. J. Arts Soc. Sci. 2021, 13, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Unzueta, G.; Esnaola, A.; Eguren, J.A. Continuous improvement framework to develop cultural change: Case study, capital goods company. TQM J. 2020, 32, 1327–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teich, S.T.; Faddoul, F.F. Lean Management—The Journey from Toyota to Healthcare. Rambam Maimonides Med. J. 2013, 4, e0007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Angelis, J.; Conti, R.; Cooper, C.L.; Gill, C. Building a high-commitment lean culture. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2011, 22, 569–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swartling, D.; Poksinska, B. Management initiation of continuous improvement from a motivational perspective. J. Appl. Econ. Bus. Res. 2013, 3, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
- Coetzee, M.; Botha, J.A. The languishment of employee commitment in the light of perceptions of fair treatment in the workplace. SA J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 10, a436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Workman-Stark, A. Enhancing police engagement: An examination of the links between fair treatment and job engagement in a Canadian police organization. Int. J. Police Sci. Manag. 2020, 22, 308–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertagnolli, F. Lean Management: Introduction and In-depth Study of Japanese Management Philosophy, 1st ed.; Springer Nature: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2022; p. xviii-449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elapanda, S.; Rao, D.U.; Kumar, E.S.; Raju, D.; Bangar, I.; Rama Rao, D.; Gangadhara, S. An Analysis on Application of Lean Framework in Health and Safety Management for Manufacturing & Service Organizations. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 88–97. [Google Scholar]
- Nahmens, I.; Ikuma, L.H. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Lean Construction and Safety in the Industrialized Housing Industry. Lean Constr. J. 2009, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Mocenco, D. Cooperation Forms in the Aeronautics Industry. INCAS Bull. 2016, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spreen, W. The Aerospace Business: Management and Technology, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; p. 386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vertesy, D.; Szirmai, A. Interrupted Innovation: Innovation System Dynamics in Latecomer Aerospace Industries; United Nations University: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ingelsson, P.; Mårtensson, A. Measuring the importance and practices of Lean values. TQM J. 2014, 26, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trenkner, M. Implementation of lean leadership. Management 2016, 20, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chiarini, A.; Brunetti, F. What really matters for a successful implementation of Lean production? A multiple linear regression model based on European manufacturing companies. Prod. Plan. Control 2019, 30, 1091–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidal, M. Manufacturing empowerment? ‘Employee involvement’ in the labour process after Fordism. Socio-Econ. Rev. 2006, 5, 197–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chan, S.W.; Ismail, F.; Ahmad, M.F.; Zaman, I.; Lim, H.Q. Factors and barriers influencing Lean Production System adoption in manufacturing industries. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2019, 8, 939–946. [Google Scholar]
- Connor, D.O.; Cormican, K. Leading from the middle: How team leaders implement lean success factors. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 2021, 13, 253–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayaraman, K.; Kee, T.L.; Soh, K.L. The perceptions and perspectives of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) practitioners: An empirical study in Malaysia. TQM J. 2012, 24, 433–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vallejo, V.F.; Antony, J.; Douglas, J.A.; Alexander, P.; Sony, M. Development of a roadmap for Lean Six Sigma implementation and sustainability in a Scottish packing company. TQM J. 2020, 32, 1263–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerasooriyan, N.W.; Alwis, A.C. Impact of employee engagement on lean manufacturing: An empirical study in Sri Lanka. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2017, 6, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamber, G.J.; Stanton, P.; Bartram, T.; Ballardie, R. Human resource management, Lean processes and outcomes for employees: Towards a research agenda. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 2881–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Jurado, P.J.; Moyano-Fuentes, J.; Jerez-Gómez, P. Human resource management in Lean Production adoption and implementation processes: Success factors in the aeronautics industry. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2014, 17, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Supervisor/manager support||Supervisor/manager support|
|Occupational health and safety||Occupational health and safety|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Benkarim, A.; Imbeau, D. Investigating the Implementation of Toyota’s Human Resources Management Practices in the Aerospace Industry. Merits 2022, 2, 126-145. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits2030010
Benkarim A, Imbeau D. Investigating the Implementation of Toyota’s Human Resources Management Practices in the Aerospace Industry. Merits. 2022; 2(3):126-145. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits2030010Chicago/Turabian Style
Benkarim, Amal, and Daniel Imbeau. 2022. "Investigating the Implementation of Toyota’s Human Resources Management Practices in the Aerospace Industry" Merits 2, no. 3: 126-145. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits2030010