turning the lean world upside down

International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Turning the Lean World Upside Down

Journal: International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

Manuscript ID Draft

Manuscript Type: Viewpoint

Keywords: People Value Stream, Voice of the Employee, Meaning, Belief, Purpose, Lean



1

Turning the Lean World Upside Down1

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to extend the People Value Stream concept further by developing a view of what the world would look like through the eyes of a positive psychology employee-centred lens. We hope to provide a frame for further discussion, research, and practical application in this area.

Design/methodology/approach – In this conceptual paper, the authors draw on their collective 120 plus years of experience with Lean and HRM through leading, teaching, researching, and consulting in the area.

Findings – The People Value Stream concept is extended here by ideating how the “Voice of the Employee” could be used to enhance our existing knowledge of Lean. Relying on a range of cognitive psychological theories, particularly Self-Determination Theory, we show how it might be possible to develop a highly engaged workforce primarily by unlocking their intrinsic motivation through a “Self-Development & Growth Cycle”. This cycle is the people-improvement version of the seminal Deming process-improvement PDCA cycle. It can be applied within a job crafting “Personal Cockpit”. We also highlight a range of outputs and wider implications that create a pull for team leaders and senior management wishing to move to a real Servant Leader model. It will also help those developing and supporting people-related policies and procedures both within organisations and in trade unions.

Originality – This paper turns the existing literature about people within Lean upside down. For the first time in an academic paper, it discusses what would be the implications for the Lean world if we truly started understanding and deploying the explicit “Voice of the Employee” rather than just the established Lean “Voice of the Owner”-led Hoshin Kanri approach. We show how a lack of knowledge in these areas by the Lean community is limiting Lean’s engagement of people and its sustainability.

Keywords People Value Stream, Voice of the Employee, Meaning, Belief, Purpose, Lean, Flow

1. Introduction

It has long been known that as much as 70% of all change initiatives are deemed failures in the long-term (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Nohria and Beer, 2000). Also well-established is that the failure of many organisational change programmes can be attributed to poor employee motivation and employee resistance to accepting change as a way of life (Spiker and Lesser, 1995; Maurer, 1997). This is perhaps inevitable as improvement approaches such as Lean have unfortunately evolved in isolation from HRM (Jekiel, 2020) and underpinning theories from psychology (Ryan and Deci, 2018).

There have been attempts to address this within the Lean sphere by developing approaches such as kata coaching (Rother, 2009) and gemba walks (Bremer, 2014). Each of these approaches sit within what we might call a “Classic Lean Organisation” paradigm where much of the Lean activity in an organisation revolves around removing wastes, solving problems

1 This paper is dedicated to the memory of Jo Beale who was one of the early pioneers of the people side of Lean, and in particular the psychological perspective. We are finally turning the Lean world upside down Jo.

Page 1 of 42 International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


2

(Liker, 2021), and improving metrics such as cost reduction, quality failures, late deliveries, and absenteeism (Lewis and Cooke, 2014).

An impartial viewer might see all of these as slightly negative in perspective. These negative perspectives and emotions can easily translate into a strong employee tendency to resist, or at least lack positivity towards, organisational change (Beale and Hines, 2005). Although individuals experience change in different ways, there is a chronic human preference for familiarity (Coghlan, 1993; Abrahamson, 2000). People tend to believe that the future state will compare unfavourably with the current state and they are thus reluctant to move out of their comfort zone of perceived safety and knowledge (Bovey and Hede, 2001). It might also be argued that employees will only be motivated sustainably to change their behaviour if they believe that the change will directly benefit them (Porras and Robertson, 1992; Lucey, 2006).

The question therefore arises as to whether Lean, as it stands, is sufficiently motivating and engaging for the large numbers of people that work within the organisation, and, indeed, whether starting with the Classic Lean Organisation approach is actually the best starting place at all. Historically, the majority of scholars have taken this organisational-level approach explaining why and under what conditions companies are successful in implementing various practices (Arellano et al., 2020). However, we argue that a more appropriate starting point is the individual employee level, with managers responding to team members rather than merely asking them to respond to managers. In this vein, van Dun et al. (2017) have suggested that a key approach by managers entails being more positively focused around active listening and agreeing behaviours.

We argue that it is important to create a positive psychological environment (Seligman, 2012). This environment should take into account the needs of the organisation, and fundamentally start with the needs of the individuals within it. In other words, the starting point should be the meaning and subsequent “Voice of the Employee” (VOE) and how employees might be encouraged to be self-reliant, purposeful, and highly engaged (Smiles, 2017/1866). When this is successfully achieved, people ‘are agentic and inspired, striving to learn; extend themselves; master new skills; and apply talents responsibly’ (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.68).

2. Turning Lean Upside Down

There is an entire library of research on leadership, and we will not attempt a detailed summary here. We will confine our focus to three types of leadership that organisations may use. The first, and least enlightened, is Transactional Leadership (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990a) which exists in traditional organisations and early-stage Lean organisations. Transactional leadership occurs when leaders ‘exchange promises and benefits to subordinates for the subordinates’ fulfilment of agreements with the leader’ (Bass 1990, p.53). According to Daft (2002), the transactional leader recognises followers’ needs and defines an exchange process where both benefit. This approach is found in many organisations that have not yet adopted Lean or that are in the early tools stage of Lean implementation. The type of language one could anticipate hearing from managers encompasses phrases like “how will we sell this to the shop floor”, with a focus on top-down management, performance management, and reward structures. We might liken this to a parent-child mentality in Berne’s Transactional Analysis with the manager assuming the ego of the parent and the employee that of the child (Berne, 1957).

The second is Transformational Leadership which ‘occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-

Page 2 of 42International Journal of Lean Six Sigma

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


3

interest for the good of the group’ (Bass, 1990b, p.21). We could therefore see it as a process of building commitment to organisational objectives and empowering followers to accomplish these objectives (Yukl, 2012). ‘The result, at least in theory, is enhanced follower performance’ (Stone et al., 2004, p.350).

This more enlightened approach seeks to transform the personal values of followers so that they support the vision and goals of the organisation by developing strong relationships and trust. Within this, Avolio et al. (1991) identified four primary behaviours: idealised influence (or charismatic influence); inspirational motivation (by providing meaning and challenge); intellectual stimulation (to innovate, reframe problems, and approach old situations in new ways); and individualised consideration. The last of these is particularly important as the leader provides personal attention to followers based on a follower’s needs for achievement and growth (Avolio and Bass, 2002).

In summary, ‘the transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses confidence in the followers, emphasises values with symbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision’ (Stone et al., 2004, p.352). This approach appears in a relatively small number of more advanced Lean companies where one might hear language like “how can we improve X so that we can achieve an increase in productivity”. This approach is therefore based on the needs of the organisation and customers, with top-down direction setting alongside a good degree of bottom-up decision making. Clear examples of this approach are kata coaching and gemba walks, with a reliance on performance management against company goals and the “true north”.

We might liken this to an attempt to move from a parent-child relationship to an adult-adult relationship (Berne, 1957). The ensuing problem is that both the manager and employee need to move to an adult ego from the parent and child egos respectively. This is hard. For the manager, this requires a move from judgemental or critical words, impatient body-language and expressions, finger-pointing, and patronising language and gestures to leading by asking questions and being attentive and non-threatening (Davidson and Mountain, 2021; Eyre, 2021). Certainly under situations of stress, the manager can slip back into a parent ego that will often elicit a child response from the employee, and, if repeated, could easily destroy the potential new relationship with the employee.

Perhaps even more problematic is that the employee needs to move to an adult ego and move away from rolling eyes, shrugging shoulders, exaggerated language, and responses such as “whatever… worst day of my life” and an overly “I” focus (Davidson and Mountain, 2021). This requires self-reliance, confidence, belief, and a clear purpose. Although this might be the case from time-to-time, rarely have organisations fully created the environment for this to flourish in transformational leadership. More problematic still is that we need the change to occur in both the manager and the employee. As a result, the move to the more enlightened adult leadership in transformational leadership on its own will likely prove less than effective.

This desired adult-adult relationship is only likely to occur under an even more enlightened styles of leadership such as true Servant Leadership or Agile Leadership (Dank and Hellström, 2021). In this paper, we focus on servant leadership as agile leadership is arguably still in its infancy (but is an area recommended for future research). Servant leadership was first articulated by Robert Greenleaf (1970). He asserted that a leader’s primary passion, motivation, and role is to serve and meet the needs of others. There are links here to many of the world’s religions, but it is especially aligned with the Judeo-Christian tradition (Wallace, 2007; Luke,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


4

2011; Asamoah, 2019). We see this approach as particularly important as the world economy continues to move away from a manufacturing base with highly educated and demanding knowledge workers (Khan et al., 2021a).

There is a great deal in common between servant leadership and transformational leadership; however, the key difference is that the starting point of servant leadership is the individual employee’s needs rather than those of the leader and wider organisation. McMinn (2001) and Russell and Stone (2002) describe servant leaders as developing people and helping them to strive and flourish. This is not to say that servant leaders are not interested in the goals of the organisation. Rather, as Stone et al. (2004) suggest, servant leadership is based on a belief that organisational goals will be attained in the long-run only by first enhancing the growth, development, and general well-being of the individuals who constitute the organisation. It therefore requires the leaders to be responsive to the needs and concerns of their followers, empathise with them, take care of them, and nurture them (Northouse, 2007).

Servant leadership is viewed as benefitting the employee as well as the organisation. For the employee, it is viewed in the literature as improving well-being (Chen et al., 2013), satisfaction (Kaya and Karatepe, 2020), and work engagement (Bao et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2020a). It also benefits the organisation by enhancing employee task performance (Saleem et al., 2020), their organisational citizenship (Bavik et al., 2017), and their innovative work behaviour (Cai et al., 2018; Khan et al., 2021b).

Lubin (2001) clarifies this, suggesting that the servant leader’s first responsibilities are relationships and people, with these taking preference over the task and product. This is because ‘servant leaders trust their followers to undertake actions that are in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do not primarily focus on organizational objectives’ (Stone et al., 2004, p.355). The acid test of the leader within servant leadership is whether those being served end up experiencing growth and development as people, and whether, while being served, they improve their well-being, knowledge, and their own capacity to become servant leaders (Wheeler, 2011).

The approach is therefore based on the needs of the individual employee with a bottom-up management approach, although not ignoring wider considerations. Clear examples of this approach are understanding the VOE, developing individual growth and development plans, as well as a good deal of leader support to help enable these to be realised. We might liken this to an adult-adult relationship (Berne, 1957). The autonomy lies with the employee, with leaders providing support (Figure 1). This is in contrast to some of the literature on servant leadership which favours a more paternalistic approach (for example, Öner, 2012).

There is an increasing call recently for a more enlightened form of leadership in the Lean and agile worlds (Shingo Institute, 2021; Taylor, 2021; Dank and Hellström, 2021). However, we rarely if ever see any evidence in classic Lean organisations that they have really understood what this truly is or that the starting point is the VOE. For examples, we need to look outside of the Lean world (Laloux, 2014, Sheridan, 2018; Edmondson, 2019; Timpson, 2021). However, the organisations these authors describe generally do not have the benefit of other elements synonymous with the classic Lean organisation and its strengths in managing the Product Value Stream.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


5

Figure 1. Turning Lean Upside Down (modified from Hines and Butterworth, 2019, p.28)

Harvey (2001) contends that the servant leader’s primary objective is the workers and their growth, then the customer base, and finally the organisational bottom line. Taking a somewhat more modern viewpoint, we should also take into account the wider societal issues facing us today and thus place a greater emphasis on the “Voice of Society” (Zokaei et al., 2013), as well as the “Voice of the Customer” and “Voice of the Owner”, but with a primary focus on the VOE (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Servant Leadership Focus (modified from Hines and Butterworth, 2019, p.40)

3. Lean Background

The importance of people in Lean was not widely recognised until this century, and until that point transactional leadership dominated in the Lean world. This started to change with a focus on areas such as respect for people (Liker, 2004; Emiliani and Stec, 2005), learning (Hines et al., 2004; Ballé et al., 2010), leadership (Spear, 2004; Emiliani, 2008), and behaviour (Beale, 2008; Hines et al., 2008). These were welcome developments, although arguably all of these were focusing on what we have described above as transformational leadership. However, even with this input, Jekiel (2011) cautioned that ‘organizations are wasting significant amounts of their people’s talent to transform work cultures, but their efforts, which would work to more fully utilize people, often fail’ (Jekiel, 2011, p.xv). This may well be because the Lean community did not sufficiently grasp the need to start by understanding the VOE before


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


6

developing leadership and HR responses, subsequently developing a true servant leadership approach, and understanding the psychology and neuroscience behind human motivation.

Perhaps the first to do this was the People Value Stream approach (Hines, 2021) which described how organisations can move beyond a typical People Current State map (Figure 3) to a Future State or People Value Stream map (Figure 4). This approach is based on a reworking of the Product Value Steam map (Rother and Shook, 1998) into a People Value Stream map. This includes the customer (line manager) pull, together with the role of Human Resource Department, the personal flows of the employee, and the likely increase in individual value add and employee tenure. In the case of the People Value Stream, the primary focus is on the growth and development of the employee (red circled in Figure 4) requiring the type of servant leadership approach described earlier. The question arises as to why this is so necessary. We explore this below, along with what that development and growth might look like.

Figure 3. Current Value Stream Map (modified from Hines, 2021)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


7

Figure 4. The People Value Stream (Hines, 2021)

4. Employee Experience

As we have seen, there is a change in emphasis, leadership style, and language (Eyre, 2021) as organisations move from being Traditional Organisations, to Classic Lean Organisations, to People Value Stream Organisations. In the former two, we are likely to be concerned with the engagement of employees, particularly around what the organisation is trying to achieve. In general, the evidence suggests that the level of engagement is quite low and the psychological understanding of the individual is poor. One of the established approaches to the measurement of engagement is that developed by Gallup (Harter and Creglow, 1998). Gallup (2015) show that the level of engagement of American employees is only 30% and that of managers only 35%. They also demonstrate that, where engagement is high, it has a very high impact on profit (23%), productivity (18%), absenteeism (81%), well-being (66%), and staff turnover (43%) (Harter et al., 2020).

When looking further into the employees’ view of what engages them, Qualtrics (2020) found that it was more useful to link engagement with what the employee wants rather than, as noted earlier, what the organisation wants. A summary of these findings is shown in Figure 5. These factors revolve around learning, manager support, linking with people’s work and company objectives, trust and belief in managers, and career development. All of these are very personal to the individual concerned and their subjective experience of work.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


8

Figure 5. What Drives Employee Engagement according to Employees (Qualtrics, 2020)

As a result, in the People Value Stream Organisation, we believe there should be a major focus on the employee experience (Gartner, 2020; Honcoop, 2021) and the psychology driving it. This of course is personal, governed by expectations, and viewed through their perception of the workplace. Kostova and Roth (2002, p.229), as cited in Arellano et al. (2020), state that practice adoption ‘is not necessarily driven by rational, efficiency-based decisions but can be better explained in terms of the interpretive social processes through which employees build perceptions about the efficiency of a practice’. This will also be dynamic in nature. The key issue is that the starting point here should be the individual, as the organisation is the sum of its individuals. As a result, the management language moves from discussions around “why aren’t they engaged” to “how do we listen to our people in order to create an environment where they have a great experience here”, and indeed areas such as Human Resource Management need to evolve to terms like People and Culture.

5. Background Psychology Theory

We now review how the psychology literature may help guide our thinking. The humanist Abraham Maslow (1962) proposed that it was necessary to develop self-actualisation and that this could be measured through the concept of peak experience. He tells us that this is when a person experiences the world for what it is and have feelings of euphoria, joy, and wonder. This is the highest self-fulfilment level growth need within his seminal Hierarchy of Needs Model (Maslow, 1943, 1954). The self-actualising need is about realising potential, self-fulfilment, and seeking personal growth; or, as Maslow states, a desire ‘to become everything one is capable of becoming’ (Maslow, 1987, p.64). Sadly, he reflected that only 2% of people will reach the state of self-actualisation (Maslow, 1970a). There is a clear resonance here with the removal of the so-called eighth waste within Lean of untapped human potential which is often added to Ohno’s seven wastes. Some have suggested that we should not see this as a waste (Elias, 2016), a point we agree with because Ohno’s wastes revolve around the rather


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


9

negative psychological perspective we earlier commented on within Lean rather than the positive psychology of growth that we are seeking within the People Value Stream approach.

McLeod (2018) summarises seven behaviours that lead to self-actualisation:

i. Experiencing life like a child, with full absorption and concentration.

ii. Trying new things instead of sticking to safe paths.

iii. Listening to your own feelings in evaluating experiences instead of the voice of tradition, authority, or the majority.

iv. Avoiding pretence (‘game playing’) and being honest.

v. Being prepared to be unpopular if your views do not coincide with those of the majority.

vi. Taking responsibility and working hard.

vii. Trying to identify your defences and having the courage to give them up.

Maslow also identified four individual lower deficiency needs, split into basic and psychological categories, which he initially stated needed to be satisfied before progressing to self-actualisation needs (1943). In subsequent work, which is less well-known, Maslow expanded his needs from five to eight in his Motivation Model which more clearly differentiated between the lower deficiency needs and the higher growth needs (Figure 6). In the growth needs area, he added cognition needs (knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning, and predictability) and aesthetic needs (appreciation and search for beauty, balance, and form) (Maslow, 1970a). He also added the transcendence need (where a person is motivated by values that transcend the personal self, such as mystical experiences, experiences of nature, service to others, the pursuit of science, and religious faith) (Maslow, 1970b).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


10

Figure 6. Maslow’s Motivation Model (modified from Maslow 1970a, 1970b)

Maslow later modified his thinking, saying that the satisfaction of lower-level needs was not an all or nothing thing and that he may have given ‘the false impression that a need must be satisfied 100 percent before the next need emerges’ (Maslow, 1987, p.69). Also in this later text, he noted that the order of the needs might be flexible based on individual differences or external circumstances. In addition, he suggests that ‘any behavior tends to be determined by several or all of the basic needs simultaneously rather than by one of them’ (Maslow, 1987, p.71).

Another seminal perspective is provided by clinical psychologist Frederick Herzberg et al. (1959) who differentiated between motivators (similar to Maslow’s growth needs) and hygiene factors (similar to Maslow’s deficiency needs). In their work, they were attempting to bring greater humanity to the workplace and hence improve organisational performance. Their research showed that people will attempt to achieve hygiene needs as they are unhappy without them, but that in doing so they will not become motivated but rather just avoid being demotivated. Also, the achievement of hygiene needs is of only temporary benefit.

They tell us that people are only truly motivated by being able to reach and satisfy real motivators such as achievement, advancement, and development. These have a far higher level of meaning and fulfilment (Eastman and Williams., 1993). However, their absence means that employees will focus on non-job-related hygiene factors. Perhaps the most important part of the theory is that the main motivating factors are not in the environment but in the intrinsic value and satisfaction gained from the job itself rather than the hygiene factors or dissatisfiers (Herzberg, 1968).

Figure 7. Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygiene Factors (Herzberg et al., 1959)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


11

In a similar vein to the peak experience of Maslow, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990) describes the concept of personal flow. Here flow is a state of mind in which a person becomes fully immersed in an activity and is using their skills to the maximum. This causes a change in brain activity (Katahira et al., 2018) explained by Gold and Ciorciari (2020) as being due to an increase in dopamine activity. The flow occurs when the individual is continually allowed to be in the so-called “stretch zone” where they are existing in a position just beyond what they are capable of doing (Figure 8). If they are continually in this zone, they will have higher emotional regulation, greater enjoyment and fulfilment, greater happiness, greater intrinsic motivation, increased engagement, learning and skill development, and be more creative (Cherry, 2018).

In order to create flow, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) identifies four key areas. First is setting clear goals that require specific responses. Second is to eliminate distractions to experience flow. Third is being able to add an element of challenge, for instance when learning a new skill. He suggests that if challenges are too low, it is necessary to increase the challenge and if the challenge is too great, you can return to the flow by learning new skills. The fourth area is choosing something you enjoy.

Figure 8. Creating Personal Flow (modified from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)

This concept of personal flow, together with the peak experience within Maslow’s higher order needs, is central to the People Value Stream approach, and marries very well with the established Lean concept of flow usually described within the area of product or information flow (Womack and Jones, 1996).

Also central is how employees are viewed by the organisation. In the transactional leadership environments, employees are often regarded as disliking their work (working to live) and have little motivation to work. Douglas McGregor (1960), a student of Maslow’s, called this Theory


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


12

X, as opposed to Theory Y where workers are seen as challenged by their work, take responsibility, need minimal direction, and take pride in their results.

This resonates in the Lean world with the Japanese term “monozukuri” which, although literally meaning making products, is actually intended more like craftsmanship where the craftsman takes great pride in their work and their ability to use resources without waste (Zokaei et al., 2013). In this vein, the Japanese External Trade Organisation proposes ‘monozukuri means having the spirit to produce excellent products and the ability to constantly improve a production system and process’ (JETRO, 2012). Kozo Saito connects monozukuri with the concept of hitozukuri, which we can fairly translate as “making people”, or education in the broadest sense (Saito et al., 2011; Blom, 2015).

Within this context of making people, Ryan suggests that all of us have a range of possible future selves: ‘the trend among cognitive theorists of personality is to eschew the idea of a central or core self, in favor of… the handbag metaphor – a collection of more or less isolated schemas, scripts, possible selves, and identities, each cued up by the immediate social context’ (Ryan, 1995, p.417). Hence, combining this with the hitozukuri thinking, we are given the opportunity to develop individuals to be their very best self in the short-, medium-, and long-term. This will maximise their well-being and thus benefit the wider organisation. Therefore, to create the best possible “me”, this ‘attainment (is) made possible by interpersonal supports that nurture one’s security, competence, and freedom’ (Ryan, 1995, p.419).

In pursuing how this might be brought about, Ryan and Deci developed Self-Determination Theory where people themselves are the “origin” of their behaviour as opposed to being regulated by outside forces (DeCharms, 1968). Hence, self-determination is ‘the ability or process of making one’s own choices and controlling one’s own life’ (Ackerman, 2021). It tells us that there are two main forms of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic, both of which can be powerful in shaping who we are and how we behave (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Extrinsic motivation is based on external drivers and may receive external rewards, whereas intrinsic motivation comes from within.

These internal drivers may include core values, our interests, and our sense of morality. They demonstrated that extrinsic rewards, threats, deadlines, directives, pressured evaluations, and imposed goals can all undermine intrinsic motivation. ‘In contrast, choice, acknowledgment of feelings, and the opportunities for self-direction were found to enhance intrinsic motivation because they allow people a greater feeling of autonomy’ (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.70).

In 1985, Deci and Ryan introduced a sub-theory called Organismic Integration Theory which displayed a taxonomy of motivation types ranging from amotivation (left hand) through extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation (right hand). It included details of each of six regulatory styles of motivation, together with the contextual factors that either promote or hinder internalisation and integration of the regulation of behaviours (Figure 7). The six styles are:

i. Amotivation (non-regulated), where behaviours and outcomes are not intentional nor under personal control and so people feel helpless, incompetent with no autonomy to act.

ii. External regulation (external motivation), where people perform behaviour only because they are coerced into it or rewarded for it.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


13

iii. Introjected regulation (external motivation), where individuals take on a regulation but do not fully accept it as their own, with behaviours performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to enhance ego.

iv. Identified regulation (external motivation), where there is a conscious valuing of a behavioural goal or regulation, and where the action is accepted or owned by the individual as personally important.

v. Integrated regulation (external motivation), where identified regulations are fully assimilated to the self and they are evaluated and brought fully into line with one’s other values and needs. There is a great deal of research that has shown that this internalisation is associated with more engagement and a range of other positive outcomes in education (Miserandino, 1996), healthcare (Williams et al., 1998), and environmental activism (Green-Demers et al., 1997).

vi. Intrinsic regulation (intrinsic motivation), where behaviours are done for their inherent satisfaction involving the inherent tendency to seek out novelty, challenge, or aesthetic value, and to extend one’s capability, and to explore and to learn. This occurs only for activities that hold intrinsic interest to the individual. This is enhanced by ‘choice, acknowledgement of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction’ Ryan and Deci (2000, p.70).

It is our belief that the first two of these predominate in a Traditional Organisation, the third and fourth in an immature and mature Lean Organisation respectively, and the last two in a People Value Stream Organisation (as shown in our addition to Ryan and Deci’s work at the bottom of Figure 9).

Figure 9. Self-Determination Theory and Stages of the People Value Stream (modified from Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.72 and Ryan, 1995, p.406)

Self-Determination Theory therefore involves ‘the investigation of people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


14

personality integration, as well as the processes that foster those positive processes’ (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.68). They identified three such needs, namely competence, relatedness, and autonomy that ‘appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal wellbeing’ (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.68).

Competence (or mastery) is the need to be effective in dealing with the environment by developing knowledge, skills, and achievements. Relatedness (or connection) refers to the need to have close relationships with others and a sense of belonging and connectedness with others. Autonomy is the need to control the course of one’s life and behaviour.

Ryan and Deci (2008) tell us that these needs are dynamic and that there are ‘within-person daily fluctuations in the satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs predicting within-person fluctuations in outcomes such as mood, vitality, physical symptoms, and self-esteem’ (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p.76). Autonomy is the biggest differentiator, together with the link between the three needs and the learned aspirations or life goals. Not only is the content of our goals important for our satisfaction, but the process of reaching those goals in an autonomous way is just as important.

Ryan (1995) explains that a person’s motivation will be a function not just of the existing environment but also their prior history. This aligns well with Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). According to Ajzen, you choose your behaviours according to your values, beliefs, and attitudes. The premise is that people do what they intend to do, not what they do not intend to do. Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) suggests that people might move towards success or away from failure (Baines, 2013a; 2013b). Behavioural intention is the antecedent of behaviour and is influenced by our attitudes, the opinion of people we respect, and whether we believe in our own ability (Hines et al., 2008). More specifically, Ajzen (1991; 2005) identifies three types of beliefs (Arellano et al., 2020):

i. Behavioural beliefs, which represent an individual’s evaluation of engaging in the behaviour in question and the potential consequences. This includes three types (Armenakis et al., 2007): valence, involving how attractive the outcome is perceived to be to the individual; discrepancy, involving how necessary the change is due to the mismatch between current and desired states; and appropriateness, involving the belief of whether the corrective action will remedy the problem;

ii. Control beliefs (also termed self-efficacy), which represent an individual’s sense of ability to perform a behaviour, and

iii. Normative beliefs, which represent an individual’s perception of the social pressure to perform a given behaviour. This involves two types: coercive and mimetic pressures (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Coercive pressures result from the individual’s belief in what others expect of them (the herd effect), and mimetic beliefs is where a practice is taken on board as it is perceived to have a positive impact and it is how things are done.

There are a few tests of Ajzen’s theory within a Lean environment. Beale (2008) studied the Lean application of four organisations, and found that an average 57.4% of the variance in intentions to implement Lean was explained by perceived behavioural controls, attitude, and subjective norms. In addition, past behaviour, employee level, Lean self-efficacy, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, gender, and union membership emerged as significant predictors of behaviour. Her study also showed that only openness (how imaginative, inventive,


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


15

original, curious, cultured, creative, and broad-minded someone is) of the 5 Factor Model of personality traits (Neuroticism, Openness to Experience, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness) had an independent effect on Lean self-efficacy. In later research, Arellano et al. (2020) found that three belief configurations associated with high levels of manager commitment. Of these, two were most common. These were what they termed the follower, who had high beliefs in appropriateness, self-efficacy, and coercive pressure, and the reformer, who had high levels of belief in discrepancy and self-efficacy.

6. The Three Stages of Organisations

‘When companies are effective in satisfying their employees, employees arm themselves with an extraordinary level of confidence that induce them to stay longer, make a deeper commitment to the business, recommend ways to improve the company’s services or products, and work harder to satisfy the customers and stakeholders’ (Loiseau, 2011, p.2). However, as we have suggested, this happens in only a few organisations that follow something closer to the People Value Stream approach.

It is now useful to take stock of the above discussion and summarise the characteristics of organisations in the Traditional approach, the Classic Lean approach, and the People Value Stream approach (Table I). There are major differences between Traditional organisations and Lean ones, although in many cases these differences are even greater between early Lean (push solutions onto people) and Mature Lean (pulled by the needs of teams) organisations. There are big differences between Lean organisations and People Value Stream organisations. This clearly has major implications for such organisations’ work with their employees, the leadership style, and people focus.

Table I. Characteristics of Traditional, Classic Lean, and People Value Stream Organisations

7. Self-Development and Growth

Based on the foregoing findings, the essence of the People Value Stream approach is the self-development and growth of the individual with the support of leadership and the people and culture team. This is similar to the thinking of the self-reliance approach (Smiles, 2017/1886), the Harada Method of high achievement originating in sport (Harada and Bodek, 2012), and personal fulfilment through a focus on one’s personal well-being or “Ikigai” (García and Miralles, 2017).

The starting point for this is creating a people version of the established PDCA thinking-based process improvement cycle (Shewhart, 1939; Deming, 1982). We term this People Value Stream version our “Self-Development & Growth Cycle”, which draws inspiration from the work of David Bovis (2019). This is a type of self-reliant management system. There are four elements of the feeling-based cycle: Meaning (~Plan), Flow (~Do), Reflect (~Check), and Act (Figure 10). This second cycle is necessary as we as humans are both thinking and feeling beings. Our brains are organised into a hierarchy wherein we process through the most primitive parts of our brain first, before getting to the smarter parts. Hence we process in the limbic part of our brain that governs our feelings and emotions before we process in the cortex or thinking part of our brain (Perry and Winfrey, 2021). So in fact we might argue that the Self-Development & Growth Cycle should precede the PDCA cycle because if we do not successfully pass through the limbic part of the brain, our logical thinking ability will be severely limited and our functioning IQ reduced by around 20% (Perry and Winfrey, 2021).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


16

This Self-Development & Growth Cycle is based on the feelings of the individual and can be undertaken at a series of timescales from daily right up to a whole career. It equates closely to Saito’s view of hitozukuri: ‘a continuous process that is more than just following education. It is a lifelong process that shows the ingredients of a personal maturation and the maturation of ones [sic] craftsmanship’ (Saito, 2020).

Figure 10. The Self-Development & Growth Cycle

Meaning

The first element is meaning, which is in effect the equivalent of the Behavioural and Strategy Deployment within a Lean organisation, but here taken to the individual level (Hines and Butterworth, 2019). Creating meaning for our people is the first step in increasing their self-reliance, ensuring an improved employee experience and achieving greater happiness (Rosso et al., 2010). It serves two psychological needs: competence and connection (May et al., 2004). As a result, employees take more interest in their job (Khan, 2021a), thus positively impacting their engagement (Steger, 2016). We suggest that meaning for the individual is based on two parts: purpose and belief (Figure 11). Both of these are important in their own way for the development, growth, and well-being of the individual, but equally important in that they are developed by the individual with any necessary support pulled from the individual’s wider team and organisation. Here we are trying to foster a strong sense of intrinsic motivation through intrinsic regulation, as well as external motivation through the internalisation of organisational goals in a way that is meaningful for the individual. There is also a lower reliance on other, potentially destructive, forms of external motivation.

The meaningfulness of work was first widely discussed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) in their Job Characteristics Model where jobs designed for employees were likely to be meaningful (and hence contribute to internal motivation) if they had high skill variety, task identity, and task significance. However, here we are more concerned with jobs designed by employees or those that they have a significant input in shaping (Thoren, 2020). This apart, we agree with their view that employees require meaningfulness in their work, responsibility for the outcomes of their work, and knowledge of the results of their work activities. However, before all this we need to listen to the VOE to understand what is meaningful for them. We see meaning as ‘the extent to which a person experiences his or her life as having purpose, significance, and coherence’ (Heintzelman and King, 2015). We also see meaning as forward looking, changeable, and dynamic (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001), and that the individual needs to have a belief that their purpose is possible to be achieved.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


17

Figure 11. The Component of Meaning

Purpose

Here we take purpose to mean the aspirations that motivate our activities (Ivtzan et al., 2016). Within the People Value Stream organisation, purpose relates to the individual themselves and their role in the organisation. The first are those elements intrinsic to the individual, and the second are those extrinsic to the individual but internalised so that they feel ownership (Figure 9). We will look at the intrinsic purpose first.

This is the personal life goal(s) that an individual might have that may or may not be connected to the workplace. These life goals are something beyond the day-to-day achievement of tasks and are personal to the individual. The process of setting these goals directs our attention to the why, how, and what of our aspirations (Locke, 1968), as well as the timescale to create positive pressure or eustress (Brulé and Morgan, 2018). They allow us targets from which we can feel a great sense of achievement having reached them, and indeed happiness in striving for them according to eudaimonic well-being research (Huta, 2017).

These life goals are based on our perception of our inner strengths, our passions, and values. All of these are based on positive attributes rather than negative ones. The Strength-Based Approach has its roots in social work and focused on building determination (Stoerkel, 2021). Strengths refer to a series of attributes where individuals see themselves (hence perceived strengths) as resourceful and resilient when they are faced with adverse conditions (McCashen, 2005). Again, the approach is positive in nature and led by the individual not the organisation. It is about helping to see themselves at their very best and capitalising on this for their benefit. It is also, again, about getting people to affect change themselves.

It is reported in the literature that leveraging such strengths is highly positive as it can increase our confidence (Crabtree, 2002), engagement (Sorensen, 2014), and health and life satisfaction (Proyer et al., 2013). According to Locke’s goal-setting theory: the goals should be difficult, as the greater the difficulty the greater the achievement; the more explicit they are the more they will regulate performance; the more attainable they are the more they will drive commitment; they should not be overly complex; and, people require feedback (and support in overcoming obstacles) on their goals to stay motivated. The aim of achieving these goals is


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


18

what Brian Tracy calls Return on Energy (ROE), namely to reduce physical and emotional energy on our life journey (Tracy, 2003).

Personal values are fundamental attitudes guiding our mental processes and behaviour, and they produce the belief that life is meaningful (Vyskocilova et al., 2015). They are an important element in Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) in mental health services (Selva, 2021). Brabban and colleagues (2017) found in such services that a common complaint was that care is done to them rather than shaped for them, and that people wanted to be listened to and be seen as a person. Values are partly or wholly unconscious, and so clarifying them can be highly illuminating for the individual. They may take many forms such as creative values (working or making things), experiential values (love and beauty), achievement values (valuing a career), relationship values (friendship), or health values (mental or physical health).

As we suggested above, the second focus of purpose should be extrinsic to the individual and based on the internalisation of the organisation’s goals (the integrated regulation of Figure 9). This is in effect the localisation of the Strategy Deployment process in a way that is meaningful for the person in that it helps them build their purpose by combining the organisation’s goals with their personal life goals. Few individuals in organisations find high-level metrics such as increases in sales and productivity intrinsically motivating, and hence such business metrics need to be analysed by the individual in a way that makes sense to them and are meaningful. For example, a metric such as productivity may appear abstract to an individual, but, after some discussion, they may find meaning in it by finding something that they can easily measure that may hold some internal value to them such as how many times in the month did they “make more than yesterday” or “finish all the tasks on their to-do list”. The key point is the internalisation of the goal is done by the individual and measured in a way they find meaningful. As we see below, this will also help in their belief in organisational goals and their own ability to achieve their contribution.

Belief

The area of beliefs can be divided into two parts. The first of these is the personal beliefs of the individual, and the second is the wider organisational beliefs. Here we are employing thinking from Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (1991). Simply put, if the individual or the organisation thinks something is possible, it probably will be, and if they think it is not possible, it almost certainly will not be. So, here we build on the positive psychology and focus on positive beliefs and behaviours. Simple illustrations might be the beliefs of an individual of whether a kaizen event will be a success before they start. This will have a major bearing on their behaviour and the likelihood of the success and sustainability of the activity. There is a need to overcome the quite widespread Imposter Syndrome whereby individuals feel that they are not worthy or were lucky in the past and are not up to a particular role (Hunt, 2020).

At the organisational level, the belief that Lean will work in an office environment or a low labour economy site is likely to have a similar predicative effect. There are numerous studies that testify to this, with a small number about Lean implementation at the individual level (Arellano et al., 2020) and organisational level (Beale, 2008). Of course, the organisational beliefs will have an impact on the individual themselves.

As a result of the above discussion, we can see that meaning for the individual is a combination of purpose and beliefs. We now turn our attention to how these can be used to create flow through their day, month, year, or whole career.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


19

Figure 12. Summary Underpinning of Meaning

Flow

Within flow, we are trying to achieve high levels of competence and connection to the organisation that will lead to increased motivation. The concept of flow is well-established within the Lean community and has been widely advocated and applied within the flow of product and services (Womack and Jones, 1996; Rother and Harris, 2001). However, following Hines (2021), we view the principle of flow as being more widely aligned with developments in positive psychology per Csikszentmihalyi (1990). In essence, we are looking to create a position where all employees can attain all levels of Maslow’s Motivation Model, and especially the higher growth levels (Figure 6). Some of the flows will be required for the growth elements of the model and others will be more concerned with the deficiency needs and type of hygiene problems these cause (Table II). Some of the flows are concerned with in-role activity and some extra-role activity (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). We see the extra-role activities as being as important as, or even more important than, the in-role activities for creating motivation, and hence why we have included a wider set of flows than just the job itself.

Table II. Linkage between People Value Stream Flows and Maslow’s Motivation Needs

Within the context of our conceptual framework, we now use the term flow by extending its established Lean view which is ‘the progressive achievement of tasks along the value stream so that a product proceeds from design to launch, order to delivery, and raw material into the hands of the customer with no stoppages, scrap, or backflows’ (Womack and Jones, 1996, p.306). In our sense, we are applying this thinking to people’s careers, and hence we modify the definition of flow to “the progressive achievement of challenges throughout people’s careers so that every individual proceeds from recruitment to post-retirement by maximising their potential and creating value to their team and the organisation they work within”. We are


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


20

therefore seeking to create the type of continuous flow (Rother and Harris, 2001) and flow efficiency (Modig and Åhlström, 2012) that is called for in the Product Value Stream, but here applying it to the People Value Stream.

In common with the established Lean concept of value stream(ing), we identify a series of value stream flows that the individual will need to progress along during their career. The primary responsibility (autonomy) should lie with the individual. As Ryan (1995, pp.411-412) states: ‘domains and situations in which individuals find their basic psychological needs supported will be those in which integrated processes will be most evident, and in which persons will tend to experience the greatest well-being and satisfaction’. The individual will require considerable support from team peers, their team leader, and senior leaders. Their role and behaviours will need to be developed considerably from the classic Lean organisation. As we mentioned, this will require changes to the language used, for instance terms like “People and Culture” rather than “Human Resource Management”. The People and Culture team will also have an important and quite different role to play.

To do this requires a “Plan for Every Person” so as to maximise the employee experience throughout the flow. However, in contrast to traditional organisations, this plan is, as much as possible, developed by the individual themselves. Of course complete autonomy is very rare, and the level of autonomy will depend on the role and the organisational setting. To foster the maximum psychological benefit, the general maxim is “the more the better”. In the traditional organisation, the employee has little or no autonomy to act and is presented with a pre-designed job description. What we are trying to achieve here is the maximum autonomy for the individual within the constraints of the organisation. Where this is not possible, for instance in a highly standardised production environment, workers might find ways to compensate for this if given the opportunity (De Treville and Antonakis, 2006). However, we suggest that the autonomy potential is increasing with the trend towards office-based tertiary roles that are now increasingly becoming hybrid or home-based.

In this context, there will be a certain degree of choice in terms of the pathway the individual might take. For example, following Miller and Frisch (2009), individuals might consider a range of pathways to achieve their goals, consider the resources and support required (Emmons, 2003) for each of these, as well as the potential obstacles (Luthans et al., 2006).

An important approach in this area is the concept of job crafting which moves on from the historical job design by management (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) to job design (largely) by the individual (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2012). Job crafting ‘involves redefining your job to incorporate your motives, strengths, and passions. The exercise prompts you to visualize the job, map its elements, and recognise them to better suit you’ (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010, p.1). However, it our belief that it is necessary to do more than just craft the job itself, which is a key part of our first flow, but also the other flows that we illustrate above (Figure 4) in order to achieve the greatest possible motivation (as seen in Table II). We might consider that, apart from their first flow, the others are primarily outside the job and so these might be termed “extra job crafting” or perhaps “flow crafting”.

Berg and colleagues describe job crafting as about taking proactive steps and actions to redesign what we do at work, and so change tasks, relationships, and perception of the job (Berg et al., 2007). The original concept (Wrzesniewski et al., 2001) was driven by a realisation that people needed a sense of control so as to create a positive image of themselves and a need for belonging.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


21

They introduce three types of job crafting. The first is task crafting which involves shaping the role by adding or dropping tasks in official job descriptions. The second is relationship crafting where individuals can seek to change who they work with, who they communicate with, and engage on a regular basis. Lastly, they introduce cognitive crafting where people change their mindset about their role. So, for instance, a cleaner may describe their job in more positive language such as “ensuring the health of the wider workforce” rather than simply “doing cleaning”. This allows for a much greater sense of intrinsic motivation. To this classification we might add a fourth within a Lean context, which is probably a subset of the first, namely that of updating standard work instructions (standard work crafting) when this is led by the frontline workers. Here, they may not have the latitude for full autonomy in their work, but providing individuals with this opportunity (supported by areas such as engineering) could be considered as a local form of task crafting.

Figure 13. Summary Underpinning of Flow

Reflect

As we noted above, humans have the equivalent of two minds: one that thinks and the other that feels (Goleman, 1997). The first of these is often the only one considered in a Lean environment, which, at least in the western world, is often dominated by male, middle-aged white men who often have an engineering or operations management background. The Deming Cycle is often very appealing here as it is simple, logical, and effective. However, for the other feeling mind, this type of classic Lean approach makes little sense as it is hard, impersonal, stressful, and often uncaring. According to Goleman, the second, feeling mind contributes 80% of the success in life through our emotional intelligence (EI). He identifies five key areas of EI: self-awareness, managing emotions, self-motivation, empathy, and handling relationships. The emotional mind is impulsive and powerful, and the two usually work in parallel; however, when under stress, the emotional mind can dominate the rational mind.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


22

He considers that skills like self-awareness and self-motivation are instilled (or destroyed) in childhood, a point further developed by Marc Brackett (2019). In our context, we could also apply this to the workplace. In order to become good at feeling, Brackett proposes that we should work on recognising emotions, understanding emotions, labelling emotions, and expressing emotions, which will then help in regulating emotions and developing ourselves.

We therefore propose that individuals reflect and internalise within the Self-Development & Growth Cycle in order to feel what they have done during the flow by reflecting on their experience. This is because there are great opportunities for growth, with growing evidence that the brain is “livewired” and not like a computer but more like an electric, living fabric that is constantly reweaving itself (Eagleman, 2021). This reflection is done in as positive a way as possible, and likely shared with other employees and leaders (HBR, 2020), although we suggest only if the employee wishes to do so.

As Goleman (1997) states, optimism is an emotional attitude that boosts performance in the business world. Hence here, we follow the 4-to-1 principle of Ogden Lindsley where, for every corrective reflection (negative psychology), there should be four optimistic achievement reflections (positive psychology). This is based on his educational research that found when teachers praised children more than they criticised them, the children achieved a far greater performance. The exact optimum he found was 3.57:1 (Lindsley, 1990). For us, this is about self-appreciation: ‘even seek 4-to-1 when talking to yourself! High performers have positive thoughts about themselves and do not indulge in negative self-talk or self-pity’ (Miller, 2011, p.184). Hence, we need to avoid what Ethan Kross (2021) calls negative chatter, which can destroy our health, sink our moods, strain our social connections, and cause us to fold under pressure.

We are therefore suggesting that the reflection should primarily be on what has been achieved. However, like Lindsley, we see a small amount of corrective (or opportunity) focus is necessary for the development and growth of the individual.

Figure 14. Summary Underpinning of Reflect


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


23

Act

The last of our four elements, as in the Deming cycle, is act. For us there are two parts to this. The first is an update of what we might do as an individual, or a reset of our meaning or flows based on our reflection. This update could, for instance, include trying more of an activity where we have achieved something, or doing less or stopping if that has led to a negative experience and calls for a correction, or, more positively, an opportunity (Collins, 2001). This might mean that we need to undertake some job crafting, or extra job crafting, within our flows, or simply internalise what we have done well or what we need to let go of (Dweck, 2017).

What it is likely to require, certainly for any major opportunity, is support from others, whether they be peers, team leaders, senior management, and/or people and culture professionals. Hence, we are suggesting, as in Product Value Stream, that we generate a pull within the People Value Stream. In general, we are looking for some stretch in this revision (Czikszentmihalyi, 1990) by applying the eustress principle wherein the target is just out of reach but with support can be achieved without overwhelming the individual (Frink and Ferris, 1998). As NM Sport director Megan Bartlett shares: ‘It isn’t about no stress, it’s about dosed stress’ (Perry and Winfrey, 2021, p.57).

This will allow the individual to stay in control (autonomy) and pull from someone they trust (connection) and feel will be able to help (belief). This type of pull, or VOE, is, of course, at the heart of what servant leadership should really be about and should set the agenda for much of the leader standard work (LSW). As Nancy Kline (2015) contends, the quality of everything we do depends on the quality of the thinking we do first, here based on the VOE. As a result, this is an extension from the advanced Lean concept of each team developing the agenda for the LSW of the above team (Mann, 2009). This will then further increase the meaning and openness of individuals to the work of their leaders in such areas as gemba walks and kata coaching.

Figure 15. Summary Underpinning of Act


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


24

8. Implementing the Self-Development & Growth Cycle

The above section has outlined the Self-Development & Growth Cycle from a conceptual point of view. We now briefly discuss how this might be applied in an organisation, although this area requires further research and empirical testing. Here we review two considerations (further research will undoubtedly reveal more): how frequent this cycling should be, and how it might be operationalised.

Cycle Time Frequency

In terms of cycling, we see this as a highly dynamic and self-driven process that will supersede the typical HR performance management process and provide the structure for one-to-one pull-based coaching activity. This should work at a number of timescales. For the original planning of purpose, this should work at a career/life timescale (although in some cases individuals might want to restrict this to a foreseen career in an individual organisation). It would then cascade down to annually, and thus be the basis of an individual-level equivalent of the annual review. Over this timescale, there may also be a wider discussion and revision if there has been some change in meaning for the individual) as meaning is not a fixed entity (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001).

Shorter cycles are suggested, perhaps quarterly or monthly, that will almost certainly involve pulled support from the organisation. There may also be shorter cycles at weekly and daily timescales where the pull from the individual to the organisation (team leader, people and culture team, and peers) would only happen if the individual felt it necessary.

Operationalisation

We see two major parts to operationalisation. The first is the initial set-up process along the lines discussed above in terms of development of meaning and as seen in the simple worked example in Figure 16. This activity should be led by the individual, although they may require support either from specialists (in the people and culture team) or from their line manager, as suggested by Wrzesniewski and colleagues (Wrzesniewski et al., 2010; Berg et al., 2013). The output from this should be a “personal cockpit”, or Tier 0 (zero) board, which is only partly or wholly shared with others at the request of the individual. This may be recorded visually, if the individual so wishes, as at STMicroelectronics in its site near New Delhi (Hines et al., 2021), or on a computer or an app.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://hbr.org/search?term=amy%20wrzesniewski


25

Figure 16. Worked Example of Meaning Creation

The second step is to turn this into a personal cockpit as shown in Figure 17. The top part of the cockpit, which might be reviewed on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis, consists of the meaning and main flow areas for the individual. This top part will also include a small number of measures chosen by the employee that are meaningful for them and their contribution to their own purpose and beliefs, as well as those of the wider organisation. The lower area consists of the feel and act areas which would be reviewed as frequently as daily. From a neuroscience point of view, this would best be done with a daily habit at a fixed time (Jones et al., 2017). The feel area would include achievements that the individual sees are significant to them, as well as one opportunity that is flagged up in the daily review. Opportunities can be of many kinds, from reviews of meaning, job crafting, to an individual’s behaviour, and can developed over a number of days and be managed through a simple agile kanban board (Dank and Hellström, 2021) with a small number of actions pulled as the individual (or their support structure) has time for. Some of these can, of course, also be escalated to the local team Tier 1 or team kanban board.

Added to this, it might be helpful to reflect on the wider employee experience, perhaps over the past year, in terms of more major touchpoint events (Thoren, 2020). This would also give a wider opportunity for achievements and opportunities as well as identification of the support areas that might be required from others in the organisation.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


26

Figure 17. Worked Example of Personal Cockpit

9. Conclusions, Implications, and Future Research

We have outlined above a major rethinking of Lean and how organisations might move to a People Value Stream approach, and starting with individual employees developing an understanding of meaning for themselves as well as how they might contribute to the organisation. This can be then used for them to choose how they flow along their career. They will regularly reflect on how they are progressing, with an emphasis more on the positive psychology feel of what has gone well and with a focus on how they can continue to grow, develop, stretch, and challenge themselves. During this journey, they will also need to update their plan to keep it current and to pull support from the wider organisation, in particular their team leaders and people and culture team.

The People Value Stream might be a logical extension of the Lean approach and bring to bear a way to truly “Respect Every Individual”. It is not however, without its problems. Chief among these is the weight of inertia that affects most organisations. We therefore envisage that there will have to be some significant change in the mindset, structure, and actions of most organisations. The outputs from our work here will become inputs into other parts of the People Value Stream model (Figure 4). These will include, but not be limited to:

i. Individuals – a rethinking and crafting of individual roles where individuals are provided with the opportunity for greater self-reliance, development, and growth requiring significant support on this motivating journey.

ii. Human Resources – a rethinking of the role of the Human Resources department towards one concerned with People and Culture:

a move from the language of Human Resource Management, such as engagement, to that of People and Culture with terms such as employee experience and senior roles such as Chief Joy Officer (Sheridan, 2018);


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


27

a move from the management of sub-functions like recruitment and reward and recognition to end-to-end processes that support employee career paths;

a move to remove, or dramatically reduce, the hygiene factors in the organisation so that employees can focus on their growth needs;

a review of who is recruited based on their self-reliance potential and past behaviours;

a move from performance management to individual-led development and growth with input from the team;

a move from imposed job descriptions to how to support bottom-up job crafting with co-created job descriptions;

a move to a new approach to rewards and recognition based more on contribution rather than job title, with greater reward for specialist knowledge and competence without necessarily a managerial role;

a move from HR event- and push-based training to experiential lifelong learning where the pull is based on the individual and team/organisational need; and

a complete review of promotion and succession planning and how this can be driven as much as possible by the individuals and peer groups concerned (the boss we want) rather than top down planned;

iii. Senior Managers – a rethinking of the role of senior managers towards true servant leaders that respond to, support, and coach individuals across the business:

the application of a caring infrastructure that focuses on the needs of individuals, especially those requiring major support (Timpson, 2021);

focusing on ways of capturing the VOE such as running lunch and listen sessions (where senior managers mostly listen) and creating an employee council;

the development of a psychologically safe organisation for people to work within (Edmondson, 2019) where leaders drive out fear (Deming, 1982);

undertaking gemba support walks with the aim of not telling people what they should do but developing one idea to implement to support the people seen, as at Thermo Fisher Scientific in Vilnius (Hines and Butterworth, 2019);

creating an environment of high trust (Brown, 2018) and letting go of the last remnants of the command and control culture and a move to high levels of delegation (Blanchard, 2020);

consider whether the existing organisational structure is flexible enough to cope with relational job crafting; and

consider other approaches to enlightened leadership than servant leadership, such as agile leadership (Dank and Hellström, 2021).


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


28

iv. Team Leaders – a rethinking of the role of the team leader from the deployer of organisation strategy to one of emotionally intelligent coach of individuals in the team:

team measures primarily centring around the development and growth of individuals in the team and their ability to contribute to the team;

time spent primarily on coaching, training, and emotionally supporting, with a much greater focus on listening and acting on bottom-up input; and

through coaching, creating resourceful individuals capable of solving their own problems.

v. Trade Unions – a rethinking of their role as they continue to evolve from protecting worker rights to perhaps being the instigator or champion of the People Value Stream approach and the development and growth of their members.

As we have sought to turn Lean on its head, we have perhaps raised more questions than we have answered and thus we see a significant need for future research which would include the empirical testing of the application of the People Value Stream, the further development of the roles and activities of individuals, senior management, leaders, and the people and culture team, as well as how the different flows we discuss operate.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


29

References

Abrahamson, E. (2000), ‘Change Without Pain’, Harvard Business Review, July-August, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp.75-79.

Ackerman, C.E. (2021), ‘Self-Determination Theory of Motivation: Why Intrinsic Motivation Matters’, Available at: https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-theory/ (Accessed 1 August 2021).

Ajzen, I. (1991), ‘The theory of planned behaviour’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.179-211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

Ajzen, I. (2005), Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., and Walker, J. (2007), ‘Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale: Development of an Assessment Instrument’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp.481-505. DOI: 10.1177/0021886307303654.

Arellano, M.C., Meuer, J., and Netland, T.H. (2020), ‘Commitment follows beliefs: A configurational perspective on operations managers’ commitment to practice adoption’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp.450-475. DOI: 10.1002/joom.1130.

Asamoah, G. (2018), ‘Understanding Servant Leadership’, Interdisciplinary Research Journal of Theology, Apologetics, Natural and Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 1-2, pp.81-111.

Avolio, N. and Bass. (2002), Developing Potential across a Full Range of Leadership Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Avolio, B.J., Waldman, D.A., and Yammarino, F.J. (1991), ‘Leading in the 1990s: The Four Is of Transformational Leadership’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp.9-16. DOI: 10.1108/03090599110143366.

Baines, B. (2013a), Towards Success, Kindle Edition.

Baines, B. (2013b), Away from Failure, Kindle Edition.

Ballé, M., Chaize, J., Fiancette, F., and Prévot, E. (2010), ‘The Lean Leap: Lean as a Learning Accelerator’, Reflections The SoL Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp.1-16.

Bao, Y., Li, C., and Zhao, H. (2018), ‘Servant leadership and engagement: A dual mediation model’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp.406-417. DOI: 10.1108/JMP-12-2017-0435.

Bass, B. (1990a), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications (3rd ed.), The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1990b), ‘From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp.19-31. DOI: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-theory/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Balle?_sg%5B0%5D=h-IU1W6D8W69fV2ujCMUHDP2MTGaLS93mUnvNBnDTUYzKoJXdIR2LzsJVPpgIKARveo-kAk.P-EIZcHUxqNg8XZHxWShtqG55JfGCFJs9oAcV4k8a3zHychjidpTcRusRgiVLXS1Gy3mXXN0GreSHW2OEttuXg&_sg%5B1%5D=WE-x-iwcRd28FUjvzHaTqkXnbUi2NfkQ8KFJ1y8jqyvueP3rklldTPsINQ-Xp9EPxTc8xOw.Co9vXfhGCWlkgpW-wRz78fKLIB22qsp6HiGgVHU3sc-jQW-cdwbYi_CoYjApAENkMUBBzyJWpL2muPY4CBf-Vg

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Frederic-Fiancette-2003514050?_sg%5B0%5D=h-IU1W6D8W69fV2ujCMUHDP2MTGaLS93mUnvNBnDTUYzKoJXdIR2LzsJVPpgIKARveo-kAk.P-EIZcHUxqNg8XZHxWShtqG55JfGCFJs9oAcV4k8a3zHychjidpTcRusRgiVLXS1Gy3mXXN0GreSHW2OEttuXg&_sg%5B1%5D=WE-x-iwcRd28FUjvzHaTqkXnbUi2NfkQ8KFJ1y8jqyvueP3rklldTPsINQ-Xp9EPxTc8xOw.Co9vXfhGCWlkgpW-wRz78fKLIB22qsp6HiGgVHU3sc-jQW-cdwbYi_CoYjApAENkMUBBzyJWpL2muPY4CBf-Vg

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Eric-Prevot-2003536309?_sg%5B0%5D=h-IU1W6D8W69fV2ujCMUHDP2MTGaLS93mUnvNBnDTUYzKoJXdIR2LzsJVPpgIKARveo-kAk.P-EIZcHUxqNg8XZHxWShtqG55JfGCFJs9oAcV4k8a3zHychjidpTcRusRgiVLXS1Gy3mXXN0GreSHW2OEttuXg&_sg%5B1%5D=WE-x-iwcRd28FUjvzHaTqkXnbUi2NfkQ8KFJ1y8jqyvueP3rklldTPsINQ-Xp9EPxTc8xOw.Co9vXfhGCWlkgpW-wRz78fKLIB22qsp6HiGgVHU3sc-jQW-cdwbYi_CoYjApAENkMUBBzyJWpL2muPY4CBf-Vg


30

Bavik, A., Bavik, Y.L., and Tang, P.M. (2017), ‘Servant Leadership, Employee Job Crafting, and Citizenship Behaviors: A Cross-Level Investigation’, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp.364-373. DOI: 10.1177/1938965517719282

Beale, J. and Hines, P. (2005), ‘Behavioural Aspects of a Sustainable Lean Manufacturing System’, Working Paper, Cardiff University Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre.

Beale, J. (2008), Understanding the Influences on Employee Motivation for Lean: An Individual-level Analysis, PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2007), ‘What is Job Crafting and Why Does it Matter?’, Theory to Practice Briefing, Available at: https://positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/What-is-Job-Crafting-and-Why-Does-it-Matter1.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2021).

Berg, J.M., Dutton, J.E., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2013), ‘Job Crafting and Meaningful Work’, Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp.81-104), American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/14183-005.

Berne, E. (1957), ‘Ego States in Psychotherapy’, American Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp.293-309. DOI: 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.1957.11.2.293.

Blanchard, K. (2020), Leading at a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performance Organizations, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London.

Blom, S. (2015), Monozukuri: Acting with Focus, Blom Consultancy, Aarle-Rixtel, Netherlands.

Bovey, W.H. and Hede, A. (2001), ‘Resistance to Organizational Change: The Role of Defence Mechanisms’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp.534-548. DOI: 10.1108/EUM0000000006166.

Bovis, D. (2019), ‘Do Not Read This Article – Danger of Sustainable Change!’, Available at: www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-read-article-danger-sustainable-change-david-bovis/ (Accessed 1 August 2021).

Brabban, A., Byrne, R., Longden, E., and Morrison, A.P. (2017), ‘The importance of human relationships, ethics and recovery-oriented values in the delivery of CBT for People with Psychosis’, Psychosis, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.157-166. DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2016.1259648.

Bracket, M. (2019), Permission to Feel: Unlock the Power of Emotions to Help Yourself and Your Child Thrive, Quercus, London.

Bremer, M. (2014), How to Do a Gemba Walk: A Leader’s Guide, The Cumberland Group, Nashville, TN.

Brown, B. (2018), Dare to Lead, Vermilion, London.

Brulé, G. and Morgan, R. (2018), ‘Working with stress: can we turn distress into eustress?’, Journal of Neuropsychology & Stress Management, Vol. 3, pp.1-3. DOI: 10.31872/2018/JNSM-100104.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


31

Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper Row Publishers, New York, NY.

Cai, W., Lysova, E.I., Khapova, S.N., and Bossink, B.A.G. (2018), ‘Servant Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior in Chinese High-Tech Firms: A Moderated Mediation Model of Meaningful Work and Job Autonomy’, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, p.1767. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01767.

Chen, C-Y., Chen, C-H.V., and Li, C-I. (2013), ‘The influence of leader’s spiritual values of servant leadership on employee motivational autonomy and eudaemonic well-being’, Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp.418-438. DOI: 10.1007/s10943-011-9479-3.

Cherry, K. (2021), ‘The Psychology of Flow’, Available at: www.verywellmind.com/what-is-flow-2794768 (Accessed 23 August 2021).

Coghlan, D. (1993), ‘A Person-Centred Approach to Dealing with Resistance to Change’, Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.10-14. DOI: 10.1108/01437739310039433.

Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great, Random House, London.

Crabtree, S. (2002), ‘Talent 101: Self-Discovery Helps Students Adjust’, Gallup, Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/7378/talent-101-selfdiscovery-helps-students-adjust.aspx (Accessed 3 September 2021).

Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow, The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Dank, N. and Hellström, R. (2021), Agile HR, Kogan Page, London.

Davidson, C. and Mountain, A. (2021), ‘Transactional Analysis - Eric Berne’, Available at: https://www.businessballs.com/building-relationships/transactional-analysis-eric-berne/ (Accessed DATE).

Deci, E. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, Plenum, New York, NY.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008), ‘Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health’, Canadian Psychology/Psycholgie canadienne, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp.182-185. DOI: 10.1037/a0012801.

Deming, W.E. (1982), Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA.

de Charms, R. (1968), Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY.

de Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), ‘Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.99-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.jom.2005.04.001.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


32

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, American Sociology Review, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp.147-160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101.

Dweck, C. (2017), Mindset - Changing The Way You Think To Fulfil Your Potential, Robinson, London.

Eagleman, D. (2021), Livewired: The Inside Story of the Ever-Changing Brain, Canongate Books, Edinburgh.

Eastman, K. and Williams, D. (1993), ‘Relationship between Mentoring and Career Development of Agricultural Education Faculty’, Journal of Agricultural Education, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp.71-76.

Edmondson, A. (2019), The Fearless Organisation: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Elias, S. (2016), ‘Let’s Ban the Eighth Waste’, Available at: https://www.leancompetency.org/lcs-articles/lets-ban-eighth-waste/ (Accessed 2 September 2021).

Emiliani, B. (2008), Practical Lean Leadership: A Strategic Leadership Guide for Executives, The CLBM, Wethersfield, CT.

Emiliani, M.L. and Stec, D.J. (2005), ‘Leaders lost in transformation’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp.370-387. DOI: 10.1108/01437730510607862.

Emmons, R.A. (2003), ‘Personal goals, life meaning, and virtue: Wellsprings of a positive life’, Keyes, C.L.M. and Hadt, J. (Eds.) Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp.105-128), American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/10594-005.

Eyre, K. (2021), 9 Voices – Own Your Conversation, Soundwave, Bristol.

Frink, D. and Ferris, G. (1980), ‘Accountability, Impression Management, and Goal Setting in the Performance Evaluation Process’, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 10, pp.1259-1283. DOI: 10.1177/001872679805101003.

Gallup (2015), ‘State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders’, Available at: https://www.gallup.com/services/182138/state-american-manager.aspx (Accessed DATE).

García, H. and Miralles, F. (2017), Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life, Hutchinson, London.

Gartner (2020), ‘Why Employee Experience Initiatives Fall Short’, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.15-18.

Gold, J. and Ciorciari, J. (2020), ‘A Review on the Role of the Neuroscience of Flow States in the Modern World’, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp.137-154. DOI: 10.3390/bs10090137.

Goleman, D. (1997), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam, New York, NY.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindset-Updated-Changing-Fulfil-Potential/dp/147213995X/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=580126418&dchild=1&hvadid=79989509228622&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=69181&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-16304607178%3Aloc-188&keywords=carol+dweck+growth+mindset&qid=1629106736&sr=8-1

https://www.leancompetency.org/lcs-articles/lets-ban-eighth-waste/


33

Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L.G., and Ménard, S. (1997), ‘The impact of behavioural motivation and environmental behaviours’, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp.157-166. DOI: 10.1037/0008-400X.29.3.157.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1970), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

Greenleaf, R.K. (2002), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), ‘Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.250-279. DOI: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Collins, London.

Harada, T. and Bodek, N. (2012), The Harada Method: the Spirit of Self-Reliance, PCS Press, Vancouver, WA.

Harter, J. and Creglow, A. (1998), A Meta-Analysis and Utility Analysis of the Relationship Between Core GWA Employee Perceptions and Business Outcomes, The Gallup Organization, Lincoln, NE.

Harter, J, Schmidt, F., Agrawal, S., Blue, A., Plowman, S., Josh, P., and Asplund, J. (2020), The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, 2020 Q12® Meta-Analysis, 10th Edition, Gallup Inc., Washington D.C.

Harvey, M. (2001), ‘The hidden force: A critique of normative approaches to business leadership’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp.36-48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A80966331/AONE?u=anon~995e9497&sid=googleScholar&xid=cc356619.

HBR (2020), ‘Why Employee Experience Initiatives Fall Short’, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp.15-18.

Heintzelman, S.J. and King, L.A. (2015), ‘Meaning in Life and Intuition’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp.477-492. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000062.

Herzberg, F. (1968), Work and the Nature of Man, Staples Press, London.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B.B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Hines, P. (2021), ‘Human Centred Lean – Introducing the People Value Stream’, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, DOI: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2021-0061.

Hines, P. and Butterworth, C. (2019), The Essence of Excellence: Creating a Culture of Continuous Improvement, S A Partners, Caerphilly.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


34

Hines, P., Found, P., Griffiths, G., and Harrison, R. (2008), Staying Lean: Thriving, not just surviving, Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff.

Hines, P., Holweg, M., and Rich, N. (2004), ‘Learning to Evolve: A Review of Contemporary Lean Thinking’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp.994-1011. DOI: 10.1108/01443570410558049.

Hines, P., Teo, I., Pied, C., Joshi, K., and Chawla, A. (2021), ‘Why Bother Defining Behaviors and KBIs?’, Butterworth, C., Jones, M.L., and Hines, P. (Eds.), Why Bother? Why and How to Access your Continuous-Improvement Culture, Productivity Press, New York.

Honcoop, M. (2021), ‘How HR Can Adopt a Customer-Centric Mindset for Employees’, HCM Sales, Marketing & Alliance Excellence, June, pp.12-14, Available at: HR.com (Accessed 14 August 2021).

Hunt, J. (2020), Unlocking Your Authentic Self: Overcoming Imposter Syndrome, Enhancing Self-confidence, and Banishing Self-doubt, Kindle Edition.

Huta, V. (2017), ‘An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts’, Reinecke, L. and Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects, (pp.14-33), Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.

Ivtzan, I., Lomas, T., Hefferon, K., and Worth, P. (2016), Second Wave Positive Psychology: Embracing the Dark Side of Life, Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.

JETRO (2012), ‘Discussing “Monozukuri” in the US’, Available at: www.jetro.go.jp/en/videos/monozukuri_us.html (Accessed 3 July 2021).

Jones, M.L., Butterworth, C., and Harder, B. (2017), 4 + 1: Embedding a Culture of Continuous Improvement in Financial Services, Action New Thinking Limited, Sydney.

Katahira, K., Yamazaki, Y., Yamaoka, C., Ozaki, H., Nakagawa, S., and Nagata, N. (2018), ‘EEG Correlates of the Flow State: A Combination of Increased Frontal Theta and Moderate Frontocentral Alpha Rhythm in the Mental Arithmetic Task’, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00300.

Kaya, B. and Karatepe, O.M. (2020), ‘Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership?’, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp.2075-2095. DOI: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2019-0438.

Khan, M.M., Mubarik, M.S., Ahmed, S.S., Islam, T., Khan, E., Rehman, A., and Sohail, F. (2021a), ‘My meaning is my engagement: exploring the mediating role of meaning between servant leadership and work engagement’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp.926-941. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-08-2020-0320.

Khan, M.M, Mubarik, M.S, Islam, T., Rehman, A., Ahmed, S.S., Khan, E., and Sohail, F. (2021b), ‘How servant leadership triggers innovative work behavior: exploring the sequential mediating role of psychological empowerment and job crafting’, European Journal of Innovation Management, DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-09-2020-0367.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00300

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00300

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2020-0320


35

Kline, N. (2015), More Time to Think: The Power of Independent Thinking, Cassell, London.

Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2002), ‘Adoption of an Organizational Practice by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: Institutional and Relational Effects’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp.215-233. DOI: 10.2307/3069293.

Kross, E. (2021), Chatter: The Voice in Our Head and How to Harness It, Penguin, London.

Laloux, F. (2014), Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness, Nelson Parker, Brussels.

Lewis, P. and Cooke, G. (2014), ‘Developing a lean measurement system to enhance process improvement’, International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, Vol. 4, pp.145-151. DOI: 10.1051/ijmqe/2013058.

Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer (1st Edition) McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

Liker, J. (2021), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer (2nd Edition), McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.

Lindsley, O.R. (1990), ‘Precision Teaching: By teachers for Children’, Teaching Exceptional Children, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp.10-15. DOI: 10.1177/004005999002200302.

Locke, E. (1968), ‘Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives’, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp.157-168.

Loiseau, J.W. (2011), ‘Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation’, Available at: https://www.academia.edu/901041/Herzbergs_Theory_of_Motivation#:~:text=Herzberg%27s%20Theory%20of%20Motivation.%20Herzberg%E2%80%99s%20Theory%20of%20Motivation,on%20the%20overall%20level%20of%20employee%20job%20satisfaction (Accessed 3 September 2021).

Lubin, K. (2001), Visionary Leader Behaviors and their Congruency with Servant Leadership Characteristics, Dissertation Abstract Online, 3022943, Available at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/cceb3e12d465ce6696b6f6d8dc7c97b1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (Accessed 2 September 2021).

Lucey, J. (2006), The Sustainability of Lean Transformation: How to Establish a Robust Process for the Implementation, Consolidation and Sustainability of Major Lean Transformations, PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.

Luke, (2011), Holy Bible: New International Version, Luke 22, 25-27, Biblica Inc., Colorado Springs, CO.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M., and Combs, G.M. (2006), ‘Psychological capital development: toward a micro-intervention’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp.387-393. DOI: 10.1002/job.373.

Mann, D. (2009), Creating a Lean Culture: Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, Productivity Press, New York, NY.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chatter-Voice-Our-Head-Harness/dp/1785041940/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=Chatter+The+Voice+in+Our+Head%2C+Why+It+Matters%2C+and+How+to+Harness+It&qid=1629105670&sr=8-4

https://www.academia.edu/901041/Herzbergs_Theory_of_Motivation#:~:text=Herzberg%27s%20Theory%20of%20Motivation.%20Herzberg%E2%80%99s%20Theory%20of%20Motivation,on%20the%20overall%20level%20of%20employee%20job%20satisfaction




36

Maslow, A. (1943), ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp.370-396. DOI: 10.1037/h0054346.

Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Maslow, A. (1962), Toward a Psychology of Being, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Maslow, A. (1970a), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Maslow, A. (1970b), Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences, New York, NY.

Maslow, A. (1987), Motivation and Personality (3rd Edition), Pearson Education, Delhi.

Maurer, R. (1997), ‘Transforming Resistance’, HR Focus, Vol. 74 No. 10, pp. 9-10.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., and Harter, L.M., (2004), ‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp.11-37. DOI: 10.1348/096317904322915892.

McCashen, W. (2005), The Strengths Approach, St Luke’s Innovative Resources, Bendigo, Victoria.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

McLeod, S. (2018), ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’, Simply Psychology, Available at: www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html (Accessed 1 September 2021).

McMinn, T.F.Jr. (2001), The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention, Digital Dissertations, 3007038.

Miller, C.A. and Frisch, M.B. (2009), Creating Your Best Life: The Ultimate Life List Guide, Sterling Publishing, New York, NY.

Miller, L.M. (2011), Lean Culture: The Leader’s Guide, LMMiller Publishing, Annapolis, MD.

Miserandino, M. (1996), ‘Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competency and autonomy in above-average children’, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp.203-214. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203.

Modig, N. and Åhlström, P. (2012), This is Lean, Rheologica Publishing, Stockholm.

Nohria, M. and Beer, N. (2000), ‘Cracking the Code of Change’, Harvard Business Review, May-June, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp.133-141.

Northouse, G. (2007), Leadership Theory and Practice (3rd Edition) Sage, London.

Öner, Z. (2012), ‘Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in the Turkish business context: A comparative empirical study’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp.300-316. DOI: 10.1108/01437731211216489.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0054346

https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0143-7739


37

Perry, B.D. and Winfrey, O. (2021), What Happened to You? Conversations on Trauma, Resilience, and Healing, Bluebird, Denver, CO.

Porras, J.I. and Robertson, P.J. (1992), ‘Organizational Development: Theory, Practice, Research’, Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Proyer, R., Gander, F., Wellenzohn, S., Ruch, W. (2013), ‘What good are character strengths beyond subjective well-being? The contribution of the good character on self-reported health-oriented behavior, physical fitness, and the subjective health status’, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp.222-232. DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2013.777767.

Qualtrics (2020), ‘2020 global employee experience trends’, Available at: www.qualtrics.com/ebooks-guides/2020-global-employee-experience-trends-report/ (Accessed 14 January 2021).

Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H., and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), ‘On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp.91-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.

Rother, M. (2009), Toyota Kata: Managing People for Improvement, Adaptiveness and Superior Results, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Rother, M. and Harris, R. (2001), Creating Continuous Flow: an action guide for managers, engineers & production associates, The Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.

Rother, M. and Shook, J. (1998), Learning to See: value stream mapping to add value and eliminate muda, The Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.

Ryan, R. (1995), ‘Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes’, Journal of Personality, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp.397-427. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-being’, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp.68-78. DOI: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2018), Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), ‘A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp.145-157. DOI: 10.1108/01437730210424.

Saito, K. (2020), ‘Hitozukuri’, Available at: www.makigami.info/hitozukuri/ (Accessed 30 August 2021).

Saito, K., Salazar, A.J., Kreafle, K.G., Grulke, E.A. (2011), ‘Hitozukuri and Monozukuri: Centuries’ Old Eastern Philosophy to Seek Harmony and Nature’, Interdisciplinary Information Science, Vol. 17 No.1, pp.1-9. DOI:10.4036/iis.2011.1.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


38

Saleem, F., Zhang, Y.Z., Gopinath, C., and Adeel, A. (2020), ‘Impact of Servant Leadership on Performance: The Mediating Role of Affective and Cognitive Trust’, SAGE Open, Vol. 10 No. 1. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019900562.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2012), Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being, Atria Paperback, New York, NY.

Selva, J. (2021), ‘Values Clarification: How Reflection on Core Values is Used in CBT’, Available at: https://positivepsychology.com/values-clarification/ (Accessed 23 August, 2021).

Sheridan, R. (2018), Chief Joy Officer, Portfolio/Penguin, New York, NY.

Shewhart, W. and Deming, W.E. (1939), Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control, Graduate School, The Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C.

Shingo Institute (2021), ‘The Shingo Model’ (Version 14.6), Jon M. Huntsman School of Business, Utah State University, UT.

Smiles, S. (2017/1866), ‘Self-Help’, Astounding Stories (originally published 1866), Available at: www.astounding-stories.com (Accessed 10 August 2021).

Sorenson, S. (2014), ‘How Employees’ Strengths Make Your Company Stronger’, Gallup Business Journal, February, Available at: https://news.gallup.com /businessjournal/167462/employees-strengths-company-stronger.aspx (Accessed 23 August 2021).

Spear, S. (2004), ‘Learning to Lead at Toyota’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp.78-86.

Spiker, B.K. and Lesser, E. (1995), ‘Change Management: We Have Met the Enemy’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 16 No.2, pp.17-21. DOI: 10.1108/eb039686.

Steger, M. (2016), ‘Creating Meaning and Purpose at Work’, Oades, L.G., Steger, M., Fave, A.D., and Passmore, J. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, pp.60-81.

Stoerkel, E. (2021), ‘What is a Strength-Based Approach?’, Available at: https://positivepsychology.com/strengths-based-interventions/ (Accessed 4 September 2021).

Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F., and Patterson, K. (2004), ‘Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp.349-361. DOI: 10.1108/01437730410538671.

Taylor, L. (2021), Servant Leadership: Learn the Most Effective Soft Skills to Become a Servant Leader and Guide your Team to Success, Independently Published.

Thoren, P-M. (2020), Agile People: A Radical Approach for HR & Managers, Lioncrest Publishing, Muskego, WI.

Timpson, J. (2021), ‘Meet my secret weapon: a director of happiness’, The Sunday Times, 21 March, p.3.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

http://www.astounding-stories.com


39

Tracy, B. (2003), Goals! How to Get Everything You Want – Faster Than You E Thought Possible, Berrett Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA.

Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), ‘Helping and Voice Extra-Role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity’, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp.108-119. DOI: 10.2307/256902.

Vyskocilova, J., Prasko, J., Ociskova, M., Sedlackova, Z., and Mozny, P. (2015), ‘Values and Values Work in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy’, Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva, Vol. 57 No. 1-2, pp.40-48.

Wallace, J.R. (2007), ‘Servant Leadership: A Worldview Perspective’, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.114-132.

Wheeler, D.W. (2011), Servant Leadership for High Education: Principles and Practices, Jossey Bass, Hoboken, NJ.

Williams, G.C., Rodin, G.C., Ryan, R.M., Grolnick, W.S., and Deci, E.L. (1998), ‘Autonomous regulation and long-term medication adherence in adult outpatients’, Health Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp.269-276. DOI: 10.1037//0278-6133.17.3.269.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation, Simon & Schuster, London.

Wrzesniewski, A., Berg, J.M., and Dutton, J.E. (2010), ‘Managing Yourself: Turn the Job You Have into the Job You Want’, Harvard Business Review, June, Available at: https://hbr.org/2010/06/managing-yourself-turn-the-job-you-have-into-the-job-you-want (Accessed 9 August 2021).

Wrzesniewski, A. and Dutton, J.E. (2001), ‘Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work’, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp.179-201. DOI: 10.2307/259118.

Yukl, G.A. (2012), Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition), Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Zokaei, K., Lovins, H., Wood, A., and Hines, P. (2013), Creating a Lean and Green Business System, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


https://hbr.org/2010/06/managing-yourself-turn-the-job-you-have-into-the-job-you-want



Table I. Characteristics of Traditional, Classic Lean, and People Value Stream Organisations

2. Classic Lean Approach

Perspectives

Stages 1-3 1. Traditional Approach

a. Early ‘Push’ Lean b. Mature ‘Pull’ Lean

3. People Value Stream Approach

Psychological Type Negative Psychology Mixed Psychology Positive Psychology

Maslow Needs Focus Lower Deficiency Needs Higher Deficiency Needs Growth Needs

Herzberg Focus Hygiene Factors Motivation Factors

Csikszentmihalyi Focus Outside Stretch Zone & No Flow Stretch Zone & Episodic Flow Stretch Zone Flow

McGregor Focus Theory X Theory Y

Predominant Ryan & Deci Motivation Amotivation/External Regulation Introjected Regulation Identified Regulation Integrated Regulation/Intrinsic

Motivation

Autonomy Little/None Low Medium High

Competence Low Medium Focused Top Down Self-Defined & Top Down

Connection Low Low Medium High

Psychological

Ajzen Beliefs High Normative Beliefs/Low Behavioural and Control Beliefs Medium/High Normative, Behavioural and Control Beliefs

High Normative, Behavioural and Medium Control Beliefs

Senior Theme Command & Control Efficiency & Waste Reduction Growth of People People and Culture


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Focus Scale Organisation Organisation & Team (Team in Agile) Individual, then Team, then Organisation

Leadership/Senior Manager Perspective Means to an End Respect for People Respect Every Individual

Leadership Style Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership Servant Leadership

Leadership Direction Top-Down Top-Down (What) & Bottom-Up (How)Individual Internalisation of Top-Down & Individual-Up (What) &

Bottom-Up (How)

Predominant Voice Owner Owner Customer Employee

Manager/Leadership

Secondary Voice(s) None Customer Owner Owner, Customer, Society

Engagement Focus Little Focus Employee Engagement Employee Experience

Attitude to People Means to an End Respect for People Respect Every Individual

People Approach Personnel Human Resource Management Human Resource Development People and Culture

People Focus

Job Design Imposed, often Poor Top-Down, may be some employee involvement

Co-Creation, often with elements of job crafting


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Table II. Linkage between People Value Stream Flows and Maslow’s Motivation Needs

Maslow’s Deficiency Needs Maslow’s Growth Needs

Need Type Physiological Safety Belonging & Love Esteem Cognitive Aesthetic Self-Actualisation Transcendence

Learning & Development X X X

Personal Behavioural Deployment

X X X

Listening, Accountability &

RecognitionX X X

Coaching & Social Support X X

Community Inclusion X X X X X X X

Flow Type

Mental & Physical Well-

beingX X X X


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

turning the lean world upside down

Documents