


































Microsoft Word - 127 - final.docx


http://journals.sfu.ca/abr  ADVANCES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH 
2015, Volume 6, pages 79-100 

 

 

79 

 

Lean Production Systems and Worker Satisfaction:  
A Field Study 

Khim L. Sim 
Western Washington University 

Anthony P. Curatola 
Avijit Banerjee 
 Drexel University 

 
The Toyota Production System approaches leanness by relying on an important subsystem known as 
respect-for-humanity.  In contrast, anecdotal evidence suggests that leanness in the Western world is 
often an outcome of lean becomes mean.  In this case study of a manufacturing plant in the United 
States, results from a structural equation model show that suggestion autonomy, a self-reported 
measure, is lower than the autonomy initially expected by the management team. Yet, our results 
illustrate the positive motivational effects of suggestion autonomy tend to have on the workers’ well-
being, which are manifested in the form of higher perceived employment security, lower effort-
reward unfairness, higher job satisfaction, and higher overall satisfaction.  Results of the second order 
effects yielded by the structural equation modeling technique employed support the extant theory 
that an integrated approach to organizational design is related to worker’s overall satisfaction. In 
other words, the signaling effect of overall satisfaction by the workers can be used to gauge a firm 
before it moves in the direction of excessive leanness, decreased employee satisfaction and 
suboptimal system performance.1 
 

Introduction 
 

The future of manufacturing in the United States and other advanced industrial countries 
depends on the ability to achieve dramatic improvements in productivity – output per employee – 
while continuously improving quality to meet rising customer expectations. In other words, survival 
in the competitive global economy requires skillful deployment of scarce resources. Proponents of 
lean often regard this as one of the most crucial strategic directions for business firms, in order to 
achieve world class performance, by doing more with less (Kennedy & Brewer, 2007; Womack, 
Jones, & Roos, 2003).  Even lean critics such as Rinehart, Huxley, and Robertson (1997, p. 2) 
acknowledge that “If there is one non-debatable proposition in the early literature, it surely must be 
the claim that lean production will be the standard manufacturing mode of the 21st century.”  
Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that leanness often becomes excessive (Adler, 1995; Bruno & 
Jordon, 1999; Reinhart, Huxley, & Robertson, 1997) and experts agree that under such 
circumstances, improvements are not easy to sustain (Schonberger, 2008; Womack, 2007).   
 Lean production, in attempting to minimize waste, embodies an integrated manufacturing 
system that is intended to maximize capacity utilization and minimize buffer inventories by reducing 
system variability.  As a result, such a system requires workers to assume responsibilities, far beyond 
what is typically expected in a traditional assembly line or mass production setting.  Hence, unless 
workers are competent, committed, willing and able to take action to solve problems on an ongoing 

                                                           
1 The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from Dr. Srinivasan Swaminathan and data collection assistance 
from Howard Wu and Paul Waterman. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

80 

 

basis, the goal of minimizing wasted resources is jeopardized. Therefore, a key element of the 
Toyota production system in their use of lean manufacturing is the notion of respect-for-humanity, 
whereby workers’ suggestions are incorporated into operational decisions and, more importantly, 
management tangibly communicates its appreciation for the workers’ input (de Treville & 
Antonakis, 2006; Fujimoto, 1999; Kennedy & Brewer, 2007; Womack, Jones, & Roos, 1990; 2003).  

The respect-for-humanity concept is viewed as being generally overlooked in western 
companies. The omission of this concept is likely to be an impediment in the adoption of and 
realization of the resulting value added by lean in these organizations.  To gain an appreciation for 
these issues, we conducted a field study in a manufacturing plant that had achieved some remarkable 
operational results and cost savings within the first few years after its implementation of a lean 
production system. First, we test and examine the underlying reasons for their success by drawing 
upon the existing organizational theory and motivational literature. Secondly, we provide support to 
the extant theories that an integrated approach to organizational design is related to the workers’ 
overall satisfaction level, which in turn can be developed as a firm’s unique capability of sustainable 
competitiveness.  The ability of a firm to learn about its environment and use this knowledge to 
guide its action appropriately may give it an edge to outperform its competitors. We find that in a 
lean manufacturing company, the signaling effect of worker’s overall satisfaction can be a gauge to 
judge whether the firm is heading toward excessive leanness, decreased satisfaction and suboptimal 
performance. 

 

Literature Review 
 

This section discusses literature relevant to this study including the areas of empowerment and lean 
practices and related concepts. 
 
Empowerment and Lean Practices 

As mentioned before, lean production systems strive to maximize capacity utilization and 
minimize excess inventories by reducing system variability with the eventual goal of total eradication 
of waste (de Treville & Antonakis, 2006).  Keeping the plant clean and orderly is one practice that is 
seen to reduce variability, since dirt and disorder often lead to quality problems, which in turn hinder 
effective problem solving (Hayes, 1981).  For example, Toyota requires workers to be committed to 
their tasks and the company, in order to attain the goals of high utilization and low buffer stocks. 
These workers are responsible for quality and nonmanufacturing tasks beyond what is typically 
expected in traditional mass production environments (Fujimoto, 1999).  Reduced buffers are only 
effective if workers are competent, committed, and are allowed to take action immediately when 
problems arise. Otherwise, workers become alienated and are unwilling or unable to respond to such 
problems. This appears to contradict the conventional wisdom of the association of high utilization 
with low inventory.   

In Toyota’s case, the respect-for-humanity subsystem is structured to incorporate 
suggestions made by workers, which shows respect and appreciation on the part of the company’s 
management. In summary, the notion of respect-for-humanity aims at “leanness through inventory 
reduction, increased capacity utilization and variability reduction” (de Treville & Antonakis, 2006, p. 
103).  

Typically, lean production begins with competitive wages (see, Graham, 1995; Milkman, 
1997) and reinforces the workers with the training and equipment needed to perform their job well 
(Adler, 1995; Womack et al., 1990).  Respect for workers also calls for employee empowerment by 
delegating certain authority and responsibility to the workers.  By encouraging the workers to 



  Sim, et al. 

81 

 

participate in the development of standard operating procedures, these same workers gain a sense of 
ownership, which translates into an increased willingness to run the process as formally documented 
(Adler, 1995; de Treville, Antonakis, & Edelson, 2005; Fujimoto, 1999). One way to increase 
utilization is to reduce the time allocated to an employee to accomplish a given task. This practice is 
intended to build upon the philosophy that scarcity results in an environment of creative tension, 
which tends to motivate workers towards finding creative solutions (Womack et al., 1990). Thus, 
lean production equips the production floor “well enough to get the job done while leaving 
resources scarce enough to encourage search behavior” (see, Cyert & March, 1992).2  

 
Perceived Organization Support and Lean Practices 

Some critics claim that the lack of a supportive and committed organizational environment 
continues to be an important barrier to the successful implementation of lean practices (see, Bruno 
& Jordon, 1999; Kumar, 2000). Organizational support theory further addresses the psychological 
processes underlying the consequences of perceived organization support (POS) (Eisenberger, 
Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). First, POS, on the basis of reciprocity, tends to give rise to a 
felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare and, therefore, help insure that the 
organization reaches its objectives. Second, POS should satisfy the socio-emotional needs of the 
employees by showing care, approval, and respect, so that workers are encouraged to incorporate 
organizational membership and role status into their social identity. Finally, POS should strengthen 
employees’ beliefs that the organization recognizes and rewards increased performance. These 
processes provide favorable outcomes for both employees by increasing job satisfaction, as well as 
heightening positive mood and the organization by reducing turnover, while enhancing employee 
commitment and performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).  

 
Effort-Reward Fairness and Lean Practices  

Recent theory and research show that workplace fairness is a contextual factor that inhibits 
employee’s extra work behavior roles. Consequently, the perceived inequity resulting from job 
effort-reward discrepancy provides an unpleasant emotional state and cognitive dissonance. To 
diminish this perceived inequity, a worker is likely to alter efforts or withdraw from the job, often 
resulting in substandard work behavior (Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). 
Both are negative results for the employee, as well as the organization. 

In lean manufacturing, effort-spent vis-a-vis reward-received is increasingly becoming a major 
concern for practitioners as a result of work pace intensification, leading to the claim of lean becomes 
mean.  Janssen (2000) showed that employees respond more innovatively to higher levels of job 
demands, when they perceive that their efforts are fairly rewarded by the organization.  
Understanding the issue of equity, in a setting that demands higher responsibility from the workers 
advances our understanding of respect-for-workers. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are 
generated: 

 
H1: Workers’ empowerment is negatively related to effort-reward unfairness. 
H2: Perceived organizational support is negatively related to effort-reward unfairness. 
 

 
Job Security and Lean Practices  

                                                           
2 But, when ‘lean becomes mean’, the negative consequences have been observed, such as stress, on the job injury, 

decreased motivation, or quitting. More insight to this issue is provided by de Treville and Antonakis (2006).   

 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

82 

 

Using a large European data set, Ramsay, Scholarios, and Harley (2000) show that job 
security is positively related to labor productivity, financial performance, and product/service 
quality, but it is negatively related to turnover.  One of the most widely accepted propositions about 
innovative work practices is that performance improvements are not sustainable over time if 
employees fear that increased productivity leads to a reduction in jobs (Fiume, 2007; Pfeffer, 1998).  
Angelis, Conti, Cooper, and Gill (2011) assert that employment stability further strengthens worker 
commitment; while Womack et al. (1990) show the importance of management support and job 
security for building a high-commitment lean culture.  Accordingly, the following three hypotheses 
are generated: 

 
H3: Workers’ training is positively related to perceived job security  
H4: Workers’ empowerment is positively related to perceived job security  
H5: Perceived organizational support is positively related to perceived job security  
 

Job Satisfaction, Overall Satisfaction and Lean Practices 
Research on employee job-satisfaction shows that it is a potential determinant of 

absenteeism, performance, turnover, and retention. Hackman and Oldham (1980) show that human 
resource practices are often linked to job satisfaction while Tomer (2001) report that employees who 
are given greater responsibilities, appear to develop skills and competencies over their job and tend 
to be more cooperative and creative.  Similarly, Witt and Nye (1992) and Brockner and Adsit (1986) 
show that fairness is an important component of job satisfaction. Other research studies provide 
evidence that job attitudes, to a large extend, are within the ability of management to influence 
(Eisenberger, et al., 1997; Griffith, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). These results support the importance 
of management’s role in nurturing the employee’s affective feeling toward the organization. Taking 
these together, the following four hypotheses are developed: 

 
H6: Effort-reward unfairness is negatively related to job satisfaction 
H7: Workers’ training is positively related to job satisfaction 
H8: Workers’ empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction 
H9: Perceived organizational support is positively related to job satisfaction 
 
Proponents of job enrichment argue that as more responsibilities and abilities are given to 

front line workers (hence, the notion of empowerment), job commitment and job satisfaction increase 
(see, Applebaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Ichniowski, Kochan, Levine, Olson, & Strauss, 
1996; MacDuffle, 1995a; 1995b). These authors explore the presence of an effective human resource 
(HR) bundle to enhance the firms’ performance. They do not simply argue that the supposed intrinsic 
motivations are sufficient stimuli to increase workers motivation and discretionary effort.  
MacDuffle (1995a), for example, argues that motivation is best increased by multiple incentives from 
integrated and overlapping bundles of HR and manufacturing practices.  Likewise, Applebaum et al. 
(2000) argue that financial rewards and trust are important mechanisms to elicit discretionary effect.  
While prior research have linked an HR and manufacturing bundle to a firm’s performance,  little 
systematic work has been done to link such a bundle to workers’ overall satisfaction.   
 Anecdotal evidence suggests leanness in the Western world is often achieved as a result of 
lean becomes mean (Adler, 1995; Bruno & Jordan, 1999).  Worst still, Reinhart et al. (1997) claim 
that lean production will always result in excess leanness.  In this case, the removal of excessive slack 
from the system would result in a diminishment of overall satisfaction, which, in turn, affects the 
workers’ overall performance.  The implication drawn is that workers’ overall satisfaction (i.e., a lead 
indicator) can be an important indicator in lean implementation.  Specifically, it provides a gauge as 



  Sim, et al. 

83 

 

to whether a firm is heading toward excessive leanness, thereby leading to decreased satisfaction and 
suboptimal performance (lagging indicator).  Accordingly, our final hypothesis, stated below, 
examines the integrated effect of HR and manufacturing practices on worker’s overall satisfaction.  

H10: The integrated HR and manufacturing practices are positively related to overall 
satisfaction. 
 
The research model and hypothesized relationships are presented in Figure 1a. The 

integrated effect of HR and manufacturing practices on worker’s overall satisfaction with second 
order Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) factors is presented in Figure 1b. 

 
 

Figure 1a: Research Model 
 

 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

84 

 

Figure 1b: Integrated Research Model with Second Order SEM Factor 

 
 



  Sim, et al. 

85 

 

Methodology 
 

A manufacturing company, located in the Eastern United States agreed to participate in our 
field study.  The company was bought by a major multinational firm a few years prior to the study.  
The parent company notified the plant’s management team that unless they can achieve dramatic 
improvements in both productivity and quality, the plant would be shut down and relocated to a 
lower cost region. The closure would result in a loss of over 700 jobs in an area already suffering 
from the effects of extensive de-industrialization. The possibility of this bleak outcome energized 
the management team with a mission to save the plant.  By May of 2005, they introduced a 100% 
Employee Involvement, Continuous Improvement Training program.  Two years later, the entire team 
received an Achievement Award from the parent company.  By the end of 2008, the firm was aiming 
to become a world class best practices manufacturer.  Among the key metrics standing behind this 
achievement were3:  

• Customer returns decreased by 84% 

• Production cycle time reduced from 21 to 5 days 

• Finished goods inventory reduced by $10,000,000 

• 33% of production space opened up as a direct result of lower WIP 

• Order lead times for custom products reduced by 44% 

• Employee grievances reduced by 42% 

• Accidents claims down 23.5% - with a $400,000 savings in Workers’ Compensation 

• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and solid waste - with savings rising from $3,000,000 
in 2006 to $9,300,000 in 2007. 

• Average product cost reduced by 8% 
 

Some of the Lean and Six Sigma Tools utilized by this company included, value stream 
mapping, visual pull system, standardized work for each process, manufacturing cell layout, problem 
solving, 5S (workplace organization),  and visual control/management.  Being a certified six sigma 
expert, the new plant manager understood that being lean is all about people being engaged. As a 
result, all employees received at least 12 hours of training in lean concepts and methods.   

 
Survey 
 The authors visited the manufacturing plant and met with the quality manager, the plant 
manager and the vice president of manufacturing (hereafter, referred to as our research 
collaborators). The president of the Union was informed of the proposed study and provided his 
total support.  

A random sample of 35 percent of the production employees received the survey 
instrument. Our research collaborators from the company distributed the questionnaires, as evenly 
as possible, to the unionized hourly workers across the three shifts, spanning across multiple 
production departments. The workers completed the survey in the company’s meeting room and 
returned it on the same day. The data collection process stretched across a three week period.  A 
total of 135 useable surveys of the 151 surveys distributed were received. Sixteen surveys were 
dropped from the study due to incompleteness or failing to pass a validity check.   

 
 

                                                           
3 Proprietary information shared by the research collaborators. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

86 

 

 
Constructs Measures 

The effort-reward fairness construct was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1= Totally 
Disagree, 7= Totally Agree).  All other constructs were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1= 
Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree).  Appendix A provides detailed information related to the 
questionnaires.  
  Lean Practices. Four questions assessed the climate of how receptive the employees are 
regarding the ‘quest for continuous improvement’.  They include: The company is working hard (1) 
toward the goal of total customer satisfaction, (2) to eliminate waste in the processes, (3) to meet 
and exceed expectations in product quality, and (4) to reduce product cost. These questions are 
taken from Womack et al. (1990).  

Effort-Reward fairness. Perceived effort-reward fairness, adapted from Van Yperen 
(1996), consists of a 6-item scale, which has high internal consistency. As a result, they are used in 
numerous scholarly research papers (see, Janssen, 2000; 2001; Van Yperen, 1996; 1998).   All of 
these 6-item are reverse coded, indicating that a high score represents a high level of effort-reward 
unfairness. 

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction as a result of the work philosophy change is determined 
from a three item scale, adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1975), who reported an internal 
consistency reliability of 0.76.   

Perceived Job Security. A three item scale adapted from Sim and Roger (2009) measure the 
perceived job security construct.  Since lean practices are relatively new in this plant, a fourth item 
was included to provide relevant information to management about the overall success of the 
system, from the employees’ point of view. Specifically, the fourth item is: “Overall, my future in 
this company appears to be more promising compared to 2 to 3 years ago”.     

Perceived Organizational Support. Perceived organizational support (POS) is assessed by 
using the scale developed by Eisenberger et al. (1997). One item, “If given the opportunity, the 
company would take advantage of me” was excluded because we felt that this statement is too 
negative.   

Training. Management recognized training as one of the critical elements to the successful 
implementation of lean. Hence, we measured training by using a four item scale from Sim and 
Rogers (2009). Since this scale is relatively new, it was tested in another pilot study where 83 
production employees completed the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha for the 4 items in the pilot 
study was 0.72.   
  Empowerment/ Autonomy. To measure the extent of empowerment or autonomy on the 
part of the production employees, we selected the 4-item empowerment scale from Powell (1995). 
These items measure production employees’ involvement, the importance given to their suggestions 
and their decision making autonomy. One item, however, is modified by replacing it (which reads 
“A more active employee suggestion system”) with two items. The newly added items are “The 
company does not value my idea/suggestions relative to continuous improvement” and “The 
company allows me through programs or forums to express my ideas and opinion about continuous 
improvement”.  These two items have been tested in a pilot study using 83 plant workers. As a 
result, these five items are used to measure the construct of empowerment/autonomy.  
 
 
 
 

 



  Sim, et al. 

87 

 

Results 
 

The results are presented in two parts. The first part presents the descriptive statistics based 
on the demographic information pertaining to the participants. The second part presents the results 
of the statistical analyses based on the participant’s responses.   

 
Descriptive Statistics 

The general demographics for the participants are fairly typical of a small plant. Thirty-four 
percent of the respondents have spent 5 years or less with the company and approximately 41 
percent of the respondents have 11 or more years of employment. The majority of the respondents 
(78%) have high school diplomas, one has a master’s degree, and the remaining employees have 
either an associate’s or a bachelor’s degree. Seventy nine percent of the respondents are male and 21 
percent are female.   Finally, the plant operates three shifts per day with 43%, 23%, and 32% of the 
employees assigned to shifts 1, 2 and 3, respectively.  

 
Statistical Analysis 

 The data analysis begins with a latent variable SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) 
technique to test the hypothesized linkages of the research model. The SEM technique tests the 
linkages in the structural model, taking into account measurement errors. The measurement model 
begins with a confirmatory factor analysis (hereafter referred to as CFA). The CFA assesses whether 
all items in a given scale represent the same latent factor. Typically, a value greater than 0.9 for the 
comparative fit index (CFI) and a value of less than 0.10 for the standardized root mean square 
residual (RMSEA) are considered a good fit (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991;  Bentler, 1990;  Kline, 
2005). 

Results from principal component analyses are used in performing the CFA. Table 1 reports 
the standardized loading, reliability and variance extracted from the CFA.  Lean practices, job 
security, reward-effort fairness and training loaded cleanly onto themselves as a factor.4 The first 2 
items of POS did not load onto themselves; as a result, (POS) became a 5-item construct.  With 
respect to the job satisfaction factor, one item (Sat3) is dropped because of low loading in the 
principal component analysis, while (S2) from POS loaded onto job satisfaction. Similarly, because 
of a low loading in principal component analysis, one item from empowerment is deleted. The 
remaining four items loaded onto two factors, i.e., suggestion autonomy and responsibility 
autonomy.  In summary, all items loaded onto the original factors with the exception of one item 
from POS that loaded onto job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha ranges from a high of 0.87 to a 
low of 0.61.  The variance extracted in most cases were good or moderate, with the exception of job 
satisfaction, job security and suggestion autonomy, which have values of 0.46, 0.43, and 0.35, 
respectively.     

The correlation matrix, along with its means and standard deviations are presented in Table 
2.  Most of the constructs are positively correlated at the one percent level of significance. This 
correlation results are not surprising since they represent the overlapping practices in a lean 
production system. Also, these correlations are well below the suggested cutoff point of .90 (Bagozzi 
et al., 1991).  As a validity measure, the Continuous Improvement Effort in lean practices has a mean 
score of 4.3 (out of 5) suggesting that, on average, the respondents agree that the company has kept 
up with the practice of continuous improvement.  The mean score for both Job Satisfaction (3.63 
out of 5) and Training (3.61 out of 5) are relatively high and responsibility autonomy has the highest  
                                                           
4 One item each from training (loading of .44) and effort-reward fairness (loading of .48) were excluded in CFA due 

to low loading. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

88 

 

Table 1: Standardized Loading, Reliability and Variance Extracted from the CFA 
 
Construct and indicators   Standardized     Variance 
      Loading Reliability  Extracted 
 
Effort-Reward Unfairness     .87   .56 
 E1     .655   

E2     .783 
E3     .785 
E4     .807 
E5     .691 

Job Satisfaction      .71   .46 
 Sat1     .665 

Sat2     .597 
 S2     .774 
Job Security       .78   .43 
 J1     .673 

J2     .596 
J3     .755 
J4     .626 

Perceived Organizational Support    .80   .60 
 S3     .410 
 S4     .675 
 S5     .847 
 S6     .856 
 S7     .580 
Training       .79   .58 
 T1     .669 
 T2     .803 

T3     .805 
Suggestion Autonomy      .61   .36 
 A1     .506 
 A2     .537 

A3     .734 
Responsibility Autonomy     n/a   n/a 
Lean Practices   
 L1 .72 .79  .48 
 L2 .77 
 L3 .71 
 L4 .56     
   
Note:  Please refer to Appendix A for the itemized description.  For Lean Practices, If L4 is deleted; 

Lean Practices will have variance extracted of 0.54. Also note that Lean Practices is captured 
as a validity measure, it is not used in the research model. 
 
 
 



  Sim, et al. 

89 

 

 
 

Table 2: Construct Means and Correlations  
 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 Mean (S.D) X1 X2  X3 X4  X5 X6 X7 X8     X9   
  
X1 Tenure N/A   
X2 Gender N/A   .107  
X3 POS 2.99 (.98)  .103 -.060 
X4 Training 3.61 (.90) -.078  .103 .370** 
X5 Suggestion Autonomy 2.95 (.95)  .054  .032 .630**  .812** 
X6 Responsibility Autonomy  4.22 (.97)  .097 -.081 .121  .228* .201* 
X7 Job Security 2.94 (.98)  .147  .230* .561**  .448** .715**      .02 
X8 Eff. Reward Unfairness 4.2 (1.53)  .115 -.07  -.507** -.367** -.533**    -.139 -.429** 
X9 Job Satisfaction 3.63 (.95)   .010  .137 .657**  .597**  .762**      .196*  .569** -.643** 
X10 Continuous Improve- 4.33 (.70)  .075  .208* .408** .414**  .402**  .111  .391**    -.381*** .621**  
        ment Effort  
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
   N = 135; * significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%;  
 
 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

90 

 

Table 3: Results of the Hypotheses Testing 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Hypothesis From     To    Standardized  Hypothesis Supported? 

      Coefficient   
H1a  Suggestion Autonomy   Effort -Reward Unfairness -.256   -1.919*** Yes 
H1b  Responsibility Autonomy  Effort-Reward Unfairness -.072   --0.874  No 
H2  Perceived Organizational Support Effort-Reward Unfairness -.388   -2.888** Yes 
H3  Training    Job Security   -.281   -.902  No 
H4a   Suggestion Autonomy   Job Security   .791   1.875*  Yes 
H4b  Responsibility Autonomy  Job Security   -.084   -.924  No 
H5  Perceived Organizational Support Job Security   .213   1.155    No   
H6  Effort-Reward Unfairness  Job Satisfaction  -.302   -2.628*** Yes 
H7  Training    Job Satisfaction  .152   .712  No  
H8a  Suggestion Autonomy  (indirect) Job Satisfaction  .086    1.028#  Yes  
H8b  Responsibility Autonomy  Job Satisfaction  .027   .341  No 
H95  Organizational Support (direct) Job Satisfaction  .268   1.819*  Yes 
  Organizational Support (indirect) Job Satisfaction  .243   2.15**  Yes 
H10  HR & Manufacturing Practices  Overall Satisfaction  .988    4.242*** Yes 

                                                           
5 Total effect with standardized coefficient of .385 is significant at pv = 0.015. Since both direct and indirect effects are statistically significant, both results are 

reported.  

 

# significant at .10;  *significant at .05;  ** significant at .01;  *** significant at ≤ .001 
 

 



  Sim, et al. 

91 

 

out of 5) and Training (3.61 out of 5) are relatively high and responsibility autonomy has the highest 
mean score of 4.22 out of 5.  In contrast, suggestion autonomy has a relatively low mean score of 
2.95 out of 5. These results suggest that although a high level of responsibility has been delegated to 
the production workers, they do not feel (given the low suggestion autonomy) that their input, 
suggestions, or voices are valued sufficiently, in most part.   

Perceived job security with a mean score of 2.94 out of 5, suggests that, on average, the 
respondents are not very optimistic about their job security. This result is consistent with a company 
recently acquired and potentially facing closure or relocation. Finally, the mean score for effort-
reward fairness is 4.20 (out of 7, with 4 being neutral). Since a higher score represents a higher level 
of perceived inequity or unfairness, these results imply that the workload may have increased in 
comparison to wages received.  The managerial implications of these results are more fully discussed 
in the concluding section of the paper. 

Table 3 provides the results of the hypotheses tests, obtained via the structural equation 
model. Seven out of the thirteen hypotheses were supported.  Two control variables, tenure and 
gender, were included in the structural equation model (SEM). Tables 4A through 4E provide the 
detailed results of individual regression analyses within the SEM.  

Table 4A shows that perceived organizational support (p = 0.002) and having more 
autonomy (p = 0.003) are positively related to the perception of effort-reward fairness.  In addition, 
production employees with longer tenure report a higher level of perceived effort-reward unfairness 
than those employees who are newer to this company (p = 0.016). All three variables have an 
indirect effect on job satisfaction via effort-reward fairness.  

Table 4B shows that the length of employment is negatively related (indirect effect) to job 
satisfaction (p = 0.029) while both perceived organization support (p = 0.019) and suggestion 
autonomy (p = 0.07) are positively related to job satisfaction via effort-reward fairness.  In addition, 
both effort-reward fairness (p =0.005) and perceived organizational support (p = 0.035) have a direct 
effect on job satisfaction.  Finally, Table 4C shows that female production employees (p = 0.013) 
have a higher perceived job security than their male counterparts; while suggestion autonomy (p = 
0.03) is positively related to perceived job security.   

Table 4D shows that the HR & manufacturing practices are positively related to overall 
satisfaction (p = 0.001) and that female production workers (p = 0.036) show a higher overall 
satisfaction level.6 To test the consistency of the SEM results, Table 4E gives a breakdown of the 
individual HR & manufacturing practices on overall satisfaction. The perceived organizational 
support, suggestion autonomy and gender are all statistically significant.  In addition, the statistical 
significance for the HR & manufacturing practices (or, the HR and Manufacturing bundle) has a p 
value of 0.001, which is lower (i.e., of greater significance) than that of perceived organizational 
support (p =0.035) and suggestion autonomy (p =0.044). These results provide support for the 
bundle effect of the HR & manufacturing practices on overall satisfaction.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                           
6 By and large, female production workers may not be the sole breadwinner in a family and workers are 

paid better in a lean manufacturing than in a non-lean setting (see, Graham, 1995; Milkman, 1997).  Thus, 

these inherent factors may have filtered through the findings of this study. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

92 

 

Table 4A: Effort-Reward Unfairness, Individual Regression Within the SEM 
Predicted  

Predictor     Sign Coeff S.E. C.R. P 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Perceived Organizational Support (-) -.802 .278 -2.888 .002** 

Suggestion Autonomy   (-) -.600 .313 -1.919 .003* 

Responsibility Autonomy  (-) -.111 .127 -.874 .382 

Tenure     ? .211 .088 2.402 .016* 

Gender     ? -.460 .303 -1.516 .130 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 
 

Table 4B: Job Satisfaction, Individual Regression Within the SEM 
Predicted  

Predictor    Sign Coeff S.E. C.R. P 

Effort Reward Unfairness  (-) -.160 .061 -2.628 .005** 

Perceived Organizational Supporta (+) .294 .161 1.819 .035* 

Training    (+) .134 .188 .712 .477 

Suggestion Autonomyb   (+) .350 .341 1.028 .304 

Responsibility Autonomy  (+) .022 .064 .344 .731 

Tenurec     ? .048 .048 1.010 .312 

Gender     ? .189 .157 1.204 .229 
a The coefficient of indirect effect via Effort Reward Unfairness is .128 (p=0.019*) 
b The coefficient of indirect effect via Effort Reward Unfairness is .096 (p=0.07#) 

c The coefficient of indirect effect via Effort Reward Unfairness is .-034 (p=0.029*) 

 

 
Table 4C: Perceived Job Security, Individual Regression Within the SEM 

Predicted  

Predictor    Sign Coeff S.E. C.R. P 

Perceived Organizational Support (+) .290 .251 1.155 .248 

Training    (+) -.308 .342 -.902 .367 

Suggestion Autonomy   (+) 1.218 .650 1.875 .030* 

Responsibility Autonomy  (+) -.086 .093 -.924 .356 

Tenure     ? .018 .067 .264 .792 

Gender     ? .562 .225 2.493 .013* 

# significant at .10;  *significant at .05;  ** significant at .01;  *** significant at ≤ .001 

 

 

Table 4D: Overall Satisfaction, Individual Regression Within the SEM 
Predicted  

Predictor    Sign Coeff S.E. C.R. P 

HR & Mfg Practices   + 1.085 .256 4.245 .001***   

Tenure     ? .000 .035 -.004 .997  

Gender     ? .269 .128 2.097 .036* 

# significant at .10;  *significant at .05;  ** significant at .01;  *** significant at ≤ .001 

 
 



  Sim, et al. 

93 

 

Table 4E: Overall Satisfaction, Individual Regression Within the SEM 
Predicted  

Predictor    Sign Coeff S.E. C.R. P 

Perceived Organizational Support (+)  .352 .193 1.818 .035*  

Training    (+) -.158 .272 -.590 .562   

Suggestion Autonomy   (+)  .903 .527 1.713 .044* 

Responsibility Autonomy  (+)  .021 .061 .351 .730   

Tenure     ? -.033 .046 -.714 .475 

Gender     ?  .372 .153 2.433 .015*   

# significant at .10;  *significant at .05;  ** significant at .01;  *** significant at ≤ .001 

 
Finally, a parsimonious SEM is generated by deleting the two practices (i.e., training and 

responsibility autonomy), which are not statistically significant in the model. The overall fit measures 
for the parsimonious SEM declines significantly.   As seen in Table 5, GFI declines to 0.74, AGFI 
declined to 0.67, TLI declined to 0.71, and RMSEA decreases to 0.10. These results suggest, 
although training and responsibility autonomy are not statistically significant individually; 
collectively, the four practices (i.e., perceived organizational support, suggestion autonomy, 
responsibility autonomy and training) affect worker’s overall satisfaction.  In summary, a consistent 
pattern appears to emerge from the SEM. In addition, the various analyses performed tend to 
reinforce one another. For example, the RMSEA is 0.06 and the CFI is 0.90, which indicate a good 
fit. Other values, such as GFI, AGFI and TLI are slightly lower, but still indicate a good fit. 

 
 

Table 5: Measures of fit for the structural model 
 
Fit measure Recommended  CFA Second Order Structural Structural          Parsimoniousa    

             Value   SEM - CFA Model, Fig 1a Model, Fig 1b Model 

 

GFI  > 0.90  0.81 0.82  0.82  0.80  0.74 

 

AGFI  >0.85  0.75 0.77  0.76  0.76  0.67 

 

CFI   > 0.95  0.89 0.90  0.88  0.87  0.75 

 

TLI  > 0.95  0.87 0.89  0.86  0.85  0.71 

 

RMSEA < 0.1  0.06 0.06  0.066  0.069  0.10 

 
  a The Parsimonious model (i.e., deleting two variables, training and responsibility autonomy, which 
are not statistically significant) did not provide good fit measures. This result is consistent with the 
integrated model of keeping all exogenous variables. Hence, detailed results for the parsimonious 
model were not reported. 

 

Discussion and Conclusion 
 

To gain a better understanding of the effects of organizational design on perceived job 
security, effort-reward fairness, job satisfaction and ultimately overall satisfaction in lean 
manufacturing systems, a field study is conducted on a company that recently changed to lean 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

94 

 

production.  Our results provide suggestions on how managers can rely on strategically linked 
performance measures as an effective competitive tool. Specifically, our structural equation 
modeling procedure provide support for suggestion autonomy in all three of the postulated 
hypotheses, while it provided support for perceived organizational support in only two of the three 
hypotheses.  On the other hand, the hypothesized relationships are not supported for responsibility 
autonomy and training. Nevertheless, the collective practices, or the HR and manufacturing ‘bundle’, 
are positively related to overall satisfaction. These results have some important implications. 

Vidal (2007, p. 248) wrote, “The increase in the responsibilities and abilities of front-line 
workers – labeled empowerment by many academics, business gurus and practitioners is argued to 
increase job satisfaction.” On the other hand, Sim and Carey (2003, p. 112) define empowerment as 
“ … a means of giving the authority to make decisions to that level or people in the organization, 
which by virtue of available knowledge and closeness to the activity concerned, is most able to make 
a correct, quick, and effective decision.” Accordingly, most academic research treats empowerment 
as a single construct (see, Anderson-Connolly, Grunberg, Greenberg, & Moore, 2002; Kennedy & 
Brewer, 2007). In contrast, de Treville and Antonakis (2006, p. 110) treated empowerment in lean 
production as two distinct constructs: (a) choice (or freedom) concerning procedures, and (b) an 
increase in accountability arising from decentralization of authority, power sharing, and participation 
in decision making. Our confirmatory factor analysis for the empowerment construct is consistent 
with de Treville and Antonakis (2006) by our finding of two dimensions of empowerment; a higher 
‘responsibility autonomy’ (mean score of 4.22 out of 5) and a lower ‘suggestion autonomy’ (mean 
score of 2.95 out of 5).  

Parker, Wall, and Cordery (2001) and Hackman and Oldham (1980), in their job 
characteristics model, suggest that both responsibility autonomy and suggestion autonomy should 
invoke intrinsic motivation leading to favorable outcomes such as job satisfaction or lower 
absenteeism and turnover.  Our results, find evidence that suggestion autonomy affects effort-
reward fairness, which in turn affects job satisfaction indirectly.  In addition, suggestion autonomy 
affects perceived job security, but we do not find support for responsibility autonomy from the 
SEM.  Vidal (2007) suggests that employee involvement programs may result in substantial new 
responsibilities, which can create pressures and psychological tensions that are experienced as 
burdens rather than motivational challenges. Presumably, high utilization (by limiting resources to 
workers) in lean practices provides challenging goals which can elicit ‘search behavior’ and is 
intended to expose workers to opportunities for utilizing, not only their motoric, but also their 
cognitive skills (see, Cyert & March, 1992). Nevertheless, work becomes stressful and any positive 
effects of ‘limiting resources’ tend to decline in magnitude and in some cases, may even become 
negative, if the process becomes excessively lean.  Hence, the above literature provides plausible 
explanations on the lack of evidence of motivational effect of responsibility autonomy in this study. 

Although the motivational effect of empowerment has been well documented in prior 
literature, in our field study, we found that suggestion autonomy, a self-reported measure from the 
production employees, is lower than that expected by the management team. Yet, the responses 
illustrate the positive motivational effects of suggestion autonomy on workers’ well-being, 
manifested in the form of higher perceived employment security, effort-reward fairness, job 
satisfaction, and overall satisfaction.  Thus, our results suggest that companies that embrace ‘true’ 
empowerment of workers, among others, can often reap the many advantages of lean practices. The 
counter-claim, made by some that, rather than empowering the workers, the new work systems leads 
to a loss of control and autonomy, while placing a wide range of increased demands on workers 
needs further examinations.    

Lean production’s emphasis on respect for worker is consistent with worker’s perception of 
justice and how equity is distributed in the workplace.  Bruno and Jordon (1999), for example, show 



  Sim, et al. 

95 

 

that deterioration in lean implementation occurs mainly due to unequal power sharing and 
management mistrust in their study of a Mitsubishi plant in Illinois.  Our findings show that a higher 
level of perceived organizational support is associated with a higher effort-reward fairness, which in 
turn affects job satisfaction directly and indirectly. Consequently, when management nurtures the 
employees, they provide the support, which enhances the employees’ feeling of less effort-reward 
unfairness, leading to higher job satisfaction. This research joins others in supporting the notion that 
perceived support affects job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al., 1997). With respect to effort-reward 
fairness, Janssen (2000) has argued that if efforts are not fairly rewarded, the motivational effect may 
not be realized.   Hence, to the extent that both suggestion autonomy and perceived organizational 
support are associated with higher perceived effort-reward fairness,  management can elicit positive 
worker behavior by increasing both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards by providing support, 
autonomy, as well as an appropriate balance between ‘limiting resources’ and eliciting ‘cognitive’ 
skill. Our findings further  support the position that a manufacturing system that aims to maximizing 
capacity utilization and minimizing buffer inventories by reducing variability,  can achieve these 
goals by emphasizing the notion of respect for workers. This emphasis is achieved by providing 
support, empowerment and fairness in effort-reward. These findings are consistent with those of 
earlier studies, suggesting that organizations which alienate workers through their practices will be 
less effective and efficient since satisfied employees tend to work harder and better than frustrated 
ones (Gross & Etzioni, 1985; Ostroff, 1992). 

Strategic management accounting has long suggested that the best performance measures are 
those linked to a business' strategy. Moreover, an integrated system of scorecards should incorporate 
a complex set of cause-and-effect relationships among the capabilities or critical variables (see, 
Atkinson & Epstein, 2000; Kaplan & Norton, 2008).  Although lean accounting has been used in 
manufacturing companies for some time, there is still a lack of systematic accounting research 
linking strategic performance measures with lean practices.  Results from the SEM employed here 
support the existing theory that an integrated approach to organizational design is related to 
workers’ overall satisfaction, which in turn can be developed as a firm’s unique capability of 
sustainable competitiveness. Although causal effects of overall satisfaction on a company’s 
performance cannot be asserted from this field study, there are numerous research studies7 linking 
satisfaction with performance. This particular company achieved improvement in their operations 
and experienced significant cost savings in a few years after switching to a lean production 
environment. 

One final issue pertains to detecting the juncture when lean becomes excessively so, with 
detrimental effects. Managers need to monitor worker’s overall satisfaction along with other 
strategically linked capabilities. Thus, the signaling effect of ‘worker’s overall satisfaction’ is one 
gauge the firm can use to sense whether the firm is heading toward excessive leanness, decreased 
satisfaction and, ultimately, suboptimal performance.  

 
Limitations 

Several limitations exist in this study.  The data is limited to a single manufacturing plant.  
Just as with any case study, one cannot simply generalize the results obtained here to other 
companies.  This research, nonetheless, does provide some insights into the possible effects of 
switching to lean production in the face of increased competition, or when confronting the stark 
choice between innovative adaptation or plant relocation,  leading to loss of jobs. 

Furthermore, we found that responsibility autonomy becomes a single item construct as a 
result of CFA loading. Although results on suggestion autonomy are statistically significant, a more 

                                                           
7 See, Bhagat, 1982; Organ, 1977. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

96 

 

comprehensive measure of empowerment is desirable for meaningful future research. Finally, it will 
be beneficial to interview a few production employees to further validate some findings of this work. 
Unfortunately, two of our collaborators accepted positions in another manufacturing plant and, as a 
result, we could not contact them to conduct interviews as planned. Management, however, 
concurred with many of our findings. Despite the above mentioned limitations, we believe that this 
study provides additional clarity on factors that impede or enhance the lean implementation and 
deployment of lean production systems. 

 

References  
 

Adler, P. S. (1995). Democratic Taylorism: The Toyota Production System at NUMMI. In S. Babson 
(Ed.), Lean work: Empowerment and exploitation in the global auto industry (pp. 207-219). Detroit, 
MI: Wayne State University Press. 

Anderson-Connolly, R., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E. S., & Moore, S. (2002). Is lean mean: 
Workplace transformation and employee well-being? Work, Employment and Society, 16, 389-
413. 

Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C., & Gill, C. (2011).  Building a high-commitment lean culture. 
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 22(5), 569-586. 

Atkinson, A., & Epstein, M. (2000).  Measure for measure.  CMA Magazine, 74(7), 22-28. 
Applebaum, E., Bailey, B., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing Advantage. Ithaca: 

Cornell University Press. 
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi. Y., & Phillips, L. W.  (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational 

research.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421-58. 
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-46.  
Bhagat, R. S. (1982). Conditions under which stronger job performance-job satisfaction relationships 

may be observed: A closer look at two situational contingencies. Academic of Management 
Journal, 25, 772-789. 

Brockner, J., & Adsit, L. (1986). The moderating effect of sex on the equity-satisfaction relationship.  
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 585-590. 

Bruno, R., & Jordan, L. (1999). From High Hopes to Disillusionment: The Evolution of Worker 
Attitudes at Mitsubishi Motors,  in David Lewin and Bruce E. Kuafman (Eds.), Advances in 
Industrial and Labor Relations( 9, pp. 153-182). Stanford, Connecticut: JAI Press 

Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1992). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. 
 
de Treville S., Antonakis,  J., & Edelson, N. M. (2005). Can standard operating procedures be 

motivating? Reconciling process variability issues and behavioral outcomes. Total Quality 
Management and Business Processes 16 (2), 231-241.  

de Treville S., & Antonakis,  J. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? 
Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management, 
24(2), 99-123. 

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997).  Perceived organizational support, 
discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 812–820. 

Fiume, O. (2007).  Lean strategy and accounting: The role of the CEO and CFO. In Joe Stenzel 
(Ed.), Lean Accounting: Best Practices for sustainable Integration. (pp. 43-57). Wiley & Sons.  

Fujimoto, T. (1999). The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota. New York: Oxford 
University Press.   



  Sim, et al. 

97 

 

Graham, L. (1995). On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu: The Japanese Model and the American Worker. 
Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.   

Griffith, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of 
employee turnover: Update moderator tests, and research implications for the next 
millennium.  Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. 

Gross, E., & Etzioni, A. (1985). Organizations in society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.  Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 60, 159-70. 
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.  
Hayes, R. H. (1981). Why Japanese factories work. Harvard Business Review, 59(4), 57-65. 
Ichniowski, C., Kochan, T. A., Levine, D., Olson, C., & Strauss, G. (1996).  What works at work: 

Overview and assessment. Industrial Relations, 35, 299-333.  
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort–reward fairness, and innovative work 

behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.  
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job 

demands, and job performance and job satisfaction.  Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039–
1050. 

Kennedy, F., & Brewer, P. (2007).  Motivating employee performance in lean environments: respect, 
empower, support. In Joe Stenzel (Ed.), Lean Accounting: Best Practices for Sustainable Integration. 
(pp. 93-118). Wiley & Sons. 

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The Execution Premium: Linking Strategy to Operations for 
Competitive Advantage.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.  

Kline, R. B. (2005).  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Ed.).  New York, NY: 
Guildford Press. 

Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996).  Dispositional and contextual determinants of 
organizational citizenship.  Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 235-266.   

Kumar, P. (2000).  Rethinking High-Performance Work Systems. Industrial Relations Centre. Ontario, 
Canada: Queen’s University Kingston. 

MacDuffle, J. P. (1995a). Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: 
Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry.  
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 197-221. 

MacDuffle, J. P. (1995b). Workers Roles in Lean Production: The Implications for Worker 
Representation. In Babson, S. (ed.) Lean Work: Empowerment and Exploitation in the 
Global Auto Industry (pp. 54-69). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.  

Milkman, R. (1997). Farewell to the Factory: Auto Workers in the Late Twentieth Century. Berkeley: 
University of California Press.  

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods 
of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 
527-556.   

Organ, D. W. (1977).  A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance 
hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53. 

Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: an 
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 963-974. 

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: towards 
an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational 
Psychology, 74, 413–440. 

Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven Practices of Successful Organizations, California Management Review, 40(2), 
96-124. 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

98 

 

Powell, T. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study.  
Strategic Management Journal, 16, 15-37. 

Ramsay, H., Scholarios, D., & Harley, B. (2000). Employees and high performance work systems: 
Testing inside the black box. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38, 501-531.   

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.  
Journal of Applies Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. 

Rinehart, J., Huxley, C., & Robertson D. (1997).  Just Another Car Factory? Lean Production and Its 
Discontents. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. 

Schonberger, R. J. (2008). Best Practices in Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement. New York: John Wiley & 
Sons, Inc. 

Sim, K. L., & Carey, J. A.  (2003). Organizational control and work team empowerment in an 
empirical analysis. Advances in Management Accounting, 11, 109-141.  

Sim, K. L., & Rogers, J. (2009). Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change, 
Management Research News, 32(1), 37-49. 

Tomer, J. (2001). Understanding high-performance work systems: the joint contribution of 
economics and human resource management. Journal of Socio-Economics, 30(1), 63-73. 

Van Yperen, N. W. (1996). Communal orientation and the burnout syndrome among nurses: A 
replication and extension. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 338-354. 

Van Yperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout: The moderating effect of 
self-efficacy.  Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71, 29-33. 

Vidal, M. (2007).  Lean production, worker empowerment, and job satisfaction: A qualitative 
analysis and critique. Critical Sociology, 33, 247-278. 

Vidal, M., & Nye, L. (1992). Gender and the relationship between perceived fairness of pay or 
promotion and job satisfaction.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 910-917. 

Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (1990).  The Machine that Changed the World. New York: Harper 
Perennial. 

Womack, J., Jones, D., & Roos, D. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your 
Corporation. New York: Free Press  

Womack, J.,(2007, May 30). The problem of sustainability. Jim Womack’s E-letters. Lean Enterprise 
Institute. Retrieved April 2, 2008 from 
http://lean.org/Community/Registered/ShowEmail.cfm?JimsEmailId=72 
 

  
Khim L. Sim is an associate professor of accounting at Western Washington University. She has 
published in international and regional journals, including Journal of Management Accounting Research, 
Advances in Management Accounting, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, and 
International Journal of Services and Operations Management, among others. 
 
Anthony P. Curatola is the Joseph F. Ford Professor of Accounting & Tax at Drexel University, 
Pennsylvania. Tony is currently the editor of the tax column in Strategic Finance. He can be reached at 
curatola@drexel.edu.   
 
Avijit Banerjee is a professor of decision sciences at Drexel University.  He has published widely, 
including in European Journal of Operation Research, OMEGA, International Journal of Production Economics, 
and International Journal of Production Research, among others. His expertise includes supply chain 
management, interface with marketing, and revenue pricing management. 



  Sim, et al. 

99 

 

Appendix A: HR & Manufacturing Practices and Satisfaction Scale  

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (1= Totally 
Disagree; 3=Neutral;  5=Totally Agree) 
Suggestion Autonomy 
(A1-A3);  
Source:  Powell (1995) 
 
Responsibility 
Autonomy 
Source:  Powell (1995) 

Perceived 
organizational Support 
(S1-S7) 
Source: Eisenberger et 
al. (1997) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Training (T1-T4) 
Source: Sim and Roger 
(2009) 
 
 

 
Lean Practices (L1-L4)8 
Source: Womack et al. 
(1990) 

The company encourages employees to involve in design, planning, and 
problems solving. 
The company does not value my ideas/suggestions relative to Continuous 
Improvement (Reversed Coding). 
The company allows me through programs or forums to express my ideas and 
opinion      about continuous improvement. 
I am able to act independently of my supervisor in performing my job function.  
Over the years, interactions between employees with customers and suppliers 
have increased (Dropped). 
 
Help is available from the company when I have a problem (Dropped). 
The company is willing to extend itself in order to help me perform my job to 
the best   of   my ability (loaded unto Job Satisfaction). 

Even if I did the best job possible, the company would fail to notice (Reversed 
Coding) 
The company takes pride in my accomplishments at work. 
The company really cares about my well-being.     
The company cares about my general satisfaction at work. 
The company show very little concern for me (Reversed Coding). 
 
My knowledge of continuous improvement allows me to apply them at work. 
The company provides me adequate training to be productive during 
improvement events.  
Continuous Improvement training is provided in a clear concise manner with 
many practical examples on how to best use the tools. 
People leading improvement initiatives have the proper amount of training to 
effectively produce desired results (Dropped). 
 
The company is working hard toward the goal of total customer satisfaction. 
The company is working hard to eliminate waste in processes. 
The company is working hard to meet and exceed expectation in product 
quality.  
The company is working hard to reduce product cost. 

Individual Outcome (Satisfaction): Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following 
statements (1= Totally Disagree; 3=Neutral;  5=Totally Agree) 
Effort-Reward Fairness9 
(E1-E6) 
Source: Van Ypreren 
(1996) 
 

I work too hard considering my outcome.   
I give a great deal of time and attention to the organization, but do not feel 
appreciated. 
I invest more in my job than I receive in return. 
The rewards I receive are not proportional to my investments. 

                                                           
8 Continuous Improvement Effort was measured but it was not used in the structural model. Instead it is used as a   

validity measure. 
9 This is the only construct which has a scale of 1-7 (1=Totally Disagree; 4=Neutral; 7=Totally Agree) 



LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND WORKER SATISFACTION 

 

100 

 

 
 
 
Perceived Job Security 
(J1-J4) 
Source: Sim and Roger 
(2009) 
 
 
Job Satisfaction (Sat1-
Sat3) 
Source: Hackman and 
Oldham (1975) 

I put more energy into my job than it is worth. 
I feel unfairly treated in my job (Dropped). 
 
Continuous improvement initiatives have increased our job security. 
Utilizing continuous improvement tools, the company will focus on keeping 
local jobs. 
The company will try its best to reduce and/or eliminate layoffs. 
Overall, my future in this company appears to be more promising compared to 
2-3 years ago. 

 
Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. 
I frequently think of quitting this job (Reversed Coding). 
I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job (Dropped). 

 


