The bottom line is this question of whether the changes negotiated at Flat Rock and CAMI contradict or correct the essentials of lean production. I tend to think it's the former. One of the changes Paul L drew attention to was election of team leaders; Adler responded that this didn't seem to be necessary when here was a functioning steward system. I would point out to Paul A. that he can't have it both ways: he can't champion the "modern" and "progressive" nature of lean production, and then invoke the adaquacy of a steward system developed for the previous system of work organization. Steward systems-- where they exist, and they are largely gone in most Big 3 plants-- were only breifly capable (in the 1940s) of instantly addressing workplace disputes over task assignments, workload, etc.; they very quickly became systems of formal grievance handling in an increasingly lengthy process of quasi-judicial review; as this happened, the working line steward gradually disappeared (for a lot of reasons), leaving only the District and Shop committee reps of today. NUMMI and Flat Rock have both restored the working line steward (called "coordinators"), but their role is still primarily the ad hoc adjudication of disputes.
The important point is that such a system may be adaquate to traditional Tayloristic practice in which changes in tasks, job loading, assignments, etc. were periodic but not continuous; in a lean system, however, change is-- literally-- supposed to be continuous. Ad hoc adjudication can't handle the far larger number of changes, many of them pontentially contentious, that occur as jobs are rebalanced and workers are flexibly reassigned. Since it is the team leader who carries out many of these new tasks, it is inconcievbale to me how Adler can see his/her role as simply "technical" or just a re-habed version of the lead-hand (odd again how such traditional roles supposedly fit in this brand-spanking new system).
Another quibble: "lead hand" as I understand it means one thing in the skilled trades (tool and die "leader", etc.) and something very different in in production realms: "pusher", "straw boss," etc. If the team leader is simply appointed by management, as was more or less the case initially at NUMMI, this so-called "lead hand" becomes a junior foreman, which is why this so-called "technical" positon was later made a joint appointment-- evidence enough that it is more than just a technical position. The question is: while joint appointment is certainly better than management appointment, is it still so far removed from the team's capacity to play a direct role in the choice that team members still view the team leader as somewhat imposed?
Dear Prof. Schnall:
Thank you very much for your invitation to a debate on lean production system between Dr. Landsbergis and Dr. Adler. I am afraid that I cannot make a useful comment, since I have little experience with a lean production and have never conducted a survey in such a worksite.
I feel that a short work cycle in a lean production system really cause higher demands on workers. On the other hand, at least in some workplaces in Japan, the lean production system seems to be designed to give workers a certain level of task control, e.g., influence over materials. Control over other aspects of work, e.g., influence over organization, and participation might be given through a QC (quality control) group activity and "teian" (proposal for improvement from workers) system. Also we should note that we have a very close relationship between company, employees and union in Japan compared with the U.S., which may prevent adverse health and emotional outcomes of introduction of a lean production system.
I agree with the conclusion from the debate: we need more data and analyses. Cross-national analyses between the U.S. and Japan considering the effects of different company-labor relations might be interesting.
I forwarded your e-mail of invitation to some of my colleagues. They may be responding later. Thank you for your invitation to a very stimulating debate. I really enjoyed it.