Implementing Lean Management Systems: Are You ...

Implementing Lean Management Systems: Are You Ready for Paradox! A Case Study of a South African Financial Organization

Background The continuous reduction of trade barriers associated with globalization and the new world trade agreements have forced the South African economy, which was previously shielded or protected, to open up to global competition and to confront the challenge of achieving global competitiveness (Kojima & Kaplinsky, 2004). In South Africa, more and more industries are slowly but surely starting to feel the threat of competition from low labour cost economies (Vermaak, 2008). Survival in this highly competitive and fragmented market requires organizations to focus on factors such as cost; quality; innovation; adherence to standards and rapid response to the customer needs. In an effort to meet these new demands, firms are deploying a range of improvement projects, including advanced equipment and reconfiguration of both their internal organization and external relationships (Barnes, Bessant, Dunne, & Morris, 2001). South Africa, as an emerging economy, is not immune to the current global economic challenges. South African organizations have been diligent in their efforts to improve their performance by adopting new management strategies to help them to compete with international standards and protect their economy (Kojima & Kaplinsky, 2004). One of the most generally accepted concepts for increasing operational excellence used in the industry today is Lean management systems (Abolhassani, Layfield, & Gopalakrishnan, 2016; Jadhav, Mantha, & Rane, 2014; Netland, 2015; Sim & Rogers, 2009; Stålberg & Fundin, 2014). Implementing Lean management is gaining popularity because of its promise of improving organizational performance in the face of what is called “the globalization hurricane” (Aa & Anthonsen, 2011). Companies that have tried to adopt Lean systems could be found in diverse fields, however few organizations managed to implement it successfully (Spear & Bowen, 1999). Implementing Lean management, organizational efficiency, employee autonomy, and information transparency needed for the project success, is a daunting task (Scherrer-Rathje, Boyle, & Deflorin, 2009). Companies use the initiatives almost as a fad and despite dramatic successes in a few companies most efforts to use Lean fail to produce significant results (Achanga, Shehab, Roy, & Nelder, 2006; Bhasin & Burcher, 2006; Laureani & Antony, 2012; Repenning & Sterman, 2001; Sim & Rogers, 2009; Spear & Bowen, 1999) .

Introduction In this research, we are aiming to add clarity to the process of Lean management experience by generating insights that facilitate Lean transformation. The research sets to achieve this through identification and investigation of the organizational paradoxes in Lean management. We will start by explaining paradox and Lean and then the literature review is summarizing major readings which discuss the paradoxical nature of Lean and paradox management different approaches. Afterwards, research method is explained and the findings are summarized. Finally the conclusion and recommendation for future research are discussed. Defining Paradox According to Poole & Van de Ven (1989) paradox as a term has several layers of meaning. In general it is used as informal umbrella for interesting while in rhetorical studies paradox designates an opposition between two accepted theses. However, in logic paradox has a narrower and specialized meaning. A logical paradox “consists of two contradictory propositions to which we are led by apparently sound arguments. In general, we can argue that a paradox is an idea involving two opposing thoughts or propositions which, however contradictory, are e qually necessary to convey a more imposing, illuminating, life-related or provocative insight into truth than either fact can muster in its own right (Biloslavo, Bagnoli, & Figelj, 2013). In other words, paradox denotes contradicting yet

PAGE 1

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

interrelated elements – elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously (Lewis, 2000). Paradoxes at best are brainteasers, challenging formal logic and at worst, they are sources of organizational paralysis, anxiety-provoking tug-of-war fuelled by actors’ struggles to make sense of underlying tensions (Handy, 1995). Paradox could be the conceptual framework that explains the nature of underlying tensions, reinforcing cycles, and their management (Lewis, 2000). Within management theory, paradox provides conceptual guidance to managers in identifying opposition poles, as well as helps them in understanding the importance of managing and exploiting such poles simultaneously (Biloslavo et al., 2013). Paradoxes pose a myriad of challenges for organizations. One main challenge is how to find the correct balance of two opposing poles and the approaches to manage paradoxes have varied over time. The recent approaches to paradox shifts our focus from either/or logic to both/and thinking and organizational ambidexterity (Bloodgood & Chae, 2010). Apparently, formal logic built by Aristotle, Descartes, and Newton which is based on either/or answers could not be used to understand paradoxes specifically in organization studies In contrast, Eastern philosophies avoid simplistic distinction and that is evident in the Yin and Yang symbol. This symbol signifies a natural wholeness composed of contradictions. It is important to understand that managing paradox means capturing its enlightening potential while our inclination is to attempt to resolve them and to create the familiar out of the strange, and to rationalize them (Lewis, 2000) Framing Lean Management The concept of Lean originated in Japan after the Second World War when the Japanese realized that they could not afford the massive investment required to build facilities similar to those in the USA (Moyano-Fuentes & Sacristán-Díaz, 2012). Lean management was first defined in the book: The Machine that Changed the World. Initially published in 1990, the book was based on a five year long research project by Massachusetts Institute of Technology that studied automobile manufacturing facilities in 14 countries including America, Japan, and parts of Europe. The findings of the study characterized what is now known as “Lean systems” (Abolhassani et al., 2016). The main inspiration for this system is Toyota automotive company who developed it to tackle the need to cater for smaller markets with a greater variety of vehicles, which required greater production flexibility (Spear & Bowen, 1999). At its core Lean is a continuous improvement program that companies use to become proactive in problem solving (Abolhassani et al., 2016). Among its main objectives is to execute operations at minimum cost and with no wastage. According to (Pedersen & Huniche, 2011) Lean is essentially about increasing customer value and reducing waste by optimizing processes within and between organizations, departments, and teams. Moreover, Lean management can be viewed as an approach or a strategy for managing operations which includes company culture, values, basic principles, methods, leadership and employeeship (Stålberg & Fundin, 2014) The implementation of Lean management systems is more than redesigning some production processes. The most seminal change has to be made in people’s mind-set. Otherwise the changes will not be sustainable (Dombrowski, Mielke, & Engel, 2012). Implementing Lean is a huge challenge since it includes changes in attitudes and culture and generalizable implementation steps have not yet emerged. Since Lean also builds on continuous improvement, its implementation is a never ending process (Stålberg & Fundin, 2014). Lean management system is a new way of thinking which includes the integration of vision, culture and strategy to serve the customer with high quality, low cost and short delivery time. Techniques of implementing lean production vary from a company, or industry, or country to another, however, most if not all focus on minimization and eventually elimination of all non-value adding activities (Agus & Hajinoor, 2012).The success of Lean implementation is not entirely based on application of PAGE 2

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

appropriate tools and techniques alone but also on the top management involvement and leadership, worker’s attitude, resources and organizational culture (Jadhav et al., 2014).

Literature Review The paradoxical nature of Lean In her article, Lewis (2000) has discussed three main paradoxes that have been identified in organizational studies: First, the paradox of learning which requires using, critiquing and often destroying past understandings and practices to construct new and more complicated frames of reference (Lewis, 2000). This paradox is inherent of implementations of new business practices. Usually Lean management is implemented as a new business improvement project and thus people are facing this kind of paradox of how much of their old system they should retain and how much they should let go in order to embrace the new system. Second, the paradox of organizing which denotes an ongoing process of equilibrating opposing forces that encourage creativity while maintain efficiency (Lewis, 2000). At the heart of Lean is continuous improvement which encourages employees at all level to seek small improvement to the work process. On the other hand Lean insists on standardization of all work. So Lean is promoting creativity while insisting on standardization. At first, these seem to be contradicting each other, one might think that standardization is the opposite of creativity. Lastly, the paradox of belonging, where groups become cohesive and distinctive by valuing the diversity of its members and their interconnections with other groups (Lewis, 2000). Most of the implementations of Lean management systems are strategic decision for companies which is coming from top to bottom. Due to this fact, middle management who constitutes the Lean leaders are in a position where they are being sandwiched between the higher management who are looking for results and achievements and the lower management who are implementing those new practices. Leaders in these implementations are stuck and sometimes feel disoriented. They know how their team works and what they are capable of and they see and understand the strategic need for instilling new practices at work. This paradox can only be solved by finding the balance and not by taking one side over the other On the other hand, L. Lüscher, Lewis, and Ingram (2006) claimed that paradox is a prominent theme in organizational change. Lean management implementations are time of major changes. Poole & Van de Ven (1989) stated that in acts of organizing, oppositional distinctions become more prominent and hence organizations become prone to paradoxes of differentiation and integration, collectivity and individuality, stability and change, maintenance of structure and creation of new structure. On another note, L. Lüscher et al.(2006) claimed that in Lean management implementations the organizational changes are usually commissioned by higher management but in order to complete the implementation successfully, managers and leaders are faced with paradoxical decisions on a daily basis. Those paradoxical decisions include the promotion of stability in order to realize change in culture; insisting on standardization in order to promote creativity; or holding onto the old in order to embrace the new (Amer & Shaw, 2014). Lean management systems implementation involve adoption of new practices with the objective of improving the efficiency of daily work. A main core of Lean is continuous improvements. It believes that there is always room for improvement. Knowing the right areas of concern, measuring performance, introducing change, measuring again and you continue improving your work. Lean management helps leaders to recognize areas of strength as well as their areas of weakness. Value stream mapping is a Lean practice that aims to educate the organization about the value adding work which should be given care and appreciation, and also it highlights the non-value adding tasks which are always areas for improvements. In organization studies, distinctions are apparent in polar constructs such as quality vs. cost, differentiation vs. integration, stability vs. change and cohesion vs. division. Splitting these paradoxes PAGE 3

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

entails further polarizing contradictions but managing the paradox means capturing its enlightening potential (Lewis, 2000). Managing change has become one of the main managerial responsibility as firms continuously engage in some form of change and yet major change projects rarely claim “substantial success”. One of the reasons is due to the fact that although executives design such projects, middle managers serve as critical change agents that align their units to executive mandates. A situation that truly earned them the “lynchpins” name as they act as intermediators between top management and the front line. In such context “sense making” becomes vital and difficult for middle managers to communicate their understanding in a way that provides their subordinates with workable certainty. Yet change may foster intense cognitive disorder for middle managers which could spur confusion, anxiety and stress that impede or even paralyze decision making (L. S. Lüscher et al., 2008) In their article, Repenning & Sterman (2001) claimed that managers face an improvement paradox. It is easier than ever to learn about improvement techniques and learn who else is using them, but on the other hand, there has been little improvement in the ability of organizations to incorporate these innovations in their everyday activities. The ability to identify and learn about new improvement methods no longer presents a significant barrier to most managers. Instead, successfully implementing these innovations presents the biggest challenge (Repenning & Sterman, 2001). Paradox management approaches As Handy (1995) has claimed “Living with paradox is not comfortable or easy. It can be like walking in a dark wood on a moonless night. It is an eerie and at times a frightening experience. All sense of direction is lost.” Paradox management is a practice that starts with differentiating a problem to solve from a paradox to manage. This distinction provides more robust thinking about how to resolve challenges and increase the likelihood of arriving at solutions that support both near and long term personal goals (Beach & Joyce, 2009). Managing paradox seeks “both/and” alternatives that may foster novelty, creativity, and long term sustainability. Understanding paradox may hold a key to coping with and even excelling in the face of, strategic tensions (Lewis, Andriopoulos, & Smith, 2014). Poole & Van de Ven (1989) proposed four generic ways for working with paradox: 1- we can keep the two poles separate and their contrasts appreciated; 2- we can situate them at two different levels or locations in the social world; 3- we can separate them temporarily in the same location; or 4- we can find new perspective which eliminates the opposition between the two poles. Another approach is highlighted by Lewis et al. (2014) which summarizes the responses to competing demand in three categories: trade-offs, compromise, and paradox. A trade-off approach seeks an either or decision as leaders strive to select between alternatives and in this setting decision making entails weighing the pros and cons. Likewise, a compromise seeks a blended solution. In this case both poles are combined to form a new option. In contrast, a paradoxical approach seeks to engage competing demands simultaneously, rather than focus on one side or develop a blended solution(Lewis et al., 2014). On the other hand, Maalouf (2013) concluded that it is common in dealing with organizational paradoxes to use two opposing strategies: acceptance and resolution. The strategies contribute to balancing the paradoxical tensions and facilitate change and transformation. At the organizational level, the adoption of the management of paradoxes through alternation between acceptance and resolution generates positive outcomes as it facilitates organizational change and transformation. While the acceptance of paradoxes increases the understanding of tensions and creates new mental frames associated with double loop learning, the resolution of the paradoxes reaps the benefits of the increased level of understanding and leads to better resolution of paradoxes. Within this context, acceptance strategies precede and prepare the ground for the effective resolution of paradoxes (Maalouf, 2013). PAGE 4

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

In their article, Shreiber & Chakravarthy (2007) suggest that in order to lead in this paradoxical environment corporate leaders should do four key things: 1- Frame the challenge creatively. 2Balance the organizational context. 3- Offer thought leadership to produce solutions. 4- Provide moral guidance to the organization (Shreiber & Chakravarthy, 2007) According to Maalouf (2013) scholars agree that the management of paradoxes is itself paradoxical as it involves the use and alternation between two opposing strategies for dealing paradoxes: acceptance and resolution. While acceptance strategies encourage actors to live with and learn from parado xes, resolution strategies seek responses to paradoxical tensions, either through separating the two opposite poles temporally or spatially, or by finding synergies or synthesis that accommodate the two extremes. It is the alternation of acceptance and resolution that constitutes the paradoxical perspective which enhances organizational performance and adaptability (Maalouf, 2013).

Research Method As such, the research design of this paper is based on applying the paradox theory to investigate the organizational paradoxes emerging from the implementation of Lean management system in a distinguished financial institution in South Africa. This study is exploratory in a sense that it aiming to explore the organizational paradoxes in Lean from the point of view of the leaders in the organization and generating insights about their roles in facilitating or hindering Lean conversion. It is worth mentioning that this article presents the preliminary results of one case study from a three case study PhD project that is conducted by one of the authors. Case Study The research method used in this paper is case study. According to Yin (2009) the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand a complex social phenomenon. As previously discussed, Lean management systems are very complex and they involve substantial changes in different areas in the organizations. Moreover, (Yin, 2009) claimed that the case method allows investigators to retain holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such an organizational and managerial processes. In general, case method is recommended for exploratory studies aiming to build theories (Yin, 2009). This study is exploratory in nature and it aims to explain why and how the organizational paradoxes in Lean implementations entail positive or negative outcome Maalouf (2013) claimed that case study is not a methodological choice of what is to be studied but rather what can be learned from the selected case? So in order to study the paradoxical nature of Lean we chose a very successful and prominent South African financial company. The case was selected based on several considerations: 1- The company’ size, its varied activities and its high revenue which adds to the complexity of case. This complexity gives horizontal and vertical span for data collection 2- The maturity level of Lean implementation in the company. They have started their Lean journey 9 years ago and have deployed Lean in several departments. 3- Access to the company and their willingness to be studied. Many companies shy from being under study especially by academic research for many reasons. The researched company is using an open door policy especially in Lean and they are willing to help other companies in th eir Lean implementation. The company was very helpful and were glad to be part of our research 4- Convenience, since the company’s headquarters are in Cape Town, which makes traveling and transportation easy for the researchers. The types of paradox we are investigating are mainly ignited and amplified by human cognition (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Therefore, individuals are the main source of data and the unit of analysis in this research of the Lean management implementation process. Therefore, the primary method of data PAGE 5

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

collection is semi-structured, in-depth interviews of seven managers in the previously mentioned company. This type of interviews allows the researcher to intervene, clarify and add questions during the interview that can be relevant for understanding the context of events (Roulston, 2008). Secondary data is collected from documents, publications, websites and observations. The collected data was then analysed using Nvivo 11 which is a computer aided qualitative analysis system CAQDAS.

Findings The analysis of the collected data from the financial organization showed evidence of several paradoxes. Six paradoxes were identified; these are presented below as opposing poles: 1-self vs. others, 2-stability vs. change, 3-standardization vs. creativity, 4-old vs. new, 5-control vs. flexibility, and finally 6-time vs. quality. These will be discussed in detail below. Self vs. others This paradox is the conflict between the needs and the beliefs of a team member and the needs of the whole team. According to the analysis this was the most mentioned paradox in all the interviews. All participants were presented with this paradox during their Lean management implementation. One participant discussed this paradox and related it to the different ethnic background prevalent in South Africa and claimed that “That is especially when you have people from different backgrounds, religions, race, areas whatever (in the lean team). The way you grow up is different from the way you are in an office environment. If you part of a bigger team, some people can understand, that somebody says something that can be constituted being unacceptable and then will just brush it off. Whereas other people will take it quite seriously” Another participant addressed the same paradox but from a different perspective. For him/her, it is the paradox of manager vs. subordinates or leader and his team, especially in implementing the Lean practices which were driven from top to bottom. He explained this paradox in his own words: “When I know the type of feedback that I am going to give. How am I going to reiterate that to my people? And how am I going to give the feedback to my management team as well, to explain that the people aren’t happy. And sometimes it forces me to be forceful about the message that is driven from the top down, until there is a break in the thinking” The participants tried to manage this paradox either by acceptance, or by resolution as summarized by one of the participants: “I think, more around, sort of gaining commitment from people. … And that is why we had such a difficult experience with them, because some managers – “if you don’t do it and you don’t like it then it is on the chop”. Then you have other managers that gain understanding, gain commitment, talk, support...” The empirical data confirmed that the paradox of self vs. others is evident in Lean management implementation and that leaders are struggling with it. The data also showed that leaders were not prepared for such a conflict and that they depended on experience to manage the paradox Stability vs. Change This paradox refer to conflict between stability and change and the concept that you need stability to promote change. This is the second highest paradox mentioned and discussed by the participants. They are struggling with the amount of change involved in the Lean management implementation. With change, especially change that is imposed from top to down, usually comes discomfort and even PAGE 6

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

in some cases reluctance. The participant agreed that explaining change and managing change is a big part of their job and their daily struggle. One participant complained that: “One must almost avoid changing too many things at the same time. Because then you make your people, apart from your environment unstable, you make your people unstable. And they almost get lost when too many things are changing at the same time…” Another participant explained how he/she used to detest change and how Lean management showed her how great change could be: “I used to be the person that didn’t like change, didn’t like change in management, didn’t like change in a process or a style. This is the SOP … why do we want to change things around. That was my mind-set before. But now, I am realizing that there is so much ideas. There is so much people have accomplished.” When asked about how they deal with this paradox the participants agreed on the fact that it cannot be forced, but rather broken down to smaller bites: “My view is, that the more buy in that you can get, the easier the journey and the less resistance there is to change. If people can understand the benefit behind doing something differently, it is a much better start than being forced to do something.” “Understanding that you are bringing about a change, so you need change management skills, you need coaching skills. That needs to accompany …. Now that, for me, isn’t covered when you go for Lean training. It is not part of how you are taught in Lean. As a manager you are not taught that in Lean.” As highlighted by the last participant, change management training is not part of Lean management. He and many other participant felt that they were not equipped or prepared for the amount of change involved in the implementation and they agreed that change management training should be part of the Lean paradox preparation. Standardization vs. creativity This paradox is the conflict between promoting the use of standards and at the same time encouraging creativity. Some participants referred to it as the conflict between SOP (standard operating procedures) and CI (continuous improvement. All participants suffered from it at some point during the Lean management implementation. Both paradoxes refer to the same type of challenge. One participant called it the paradox of robot vs. human and explained that: “So if I have to practice a b c, a b c, a b c. I become robotic. That for me is one of the things that Lean is saying. You actually creating a robotic system in terms of an individual and what they have to do.” Another participant claimed that coping with standardization is very individual and that some members of his team are better in following the standard operating procedures while others struggle because of their need to practice their creativity. He explained that: “Some people thrive from a Lean methodology perspective… and they can do it, flying colours. Other individuals who, when you put that structure in front of them, struggle completely. They cannot cope with it. So, do you allow that person the freedom? Lean says not.” A third participant blamed the struggle for standardization on the size of the company: “I think one of the things that one needs to be aware of, is the size of this organization. There have been attempts before to standardize processes, and it has not delivered the results that people were looking for.” PAGE 7

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

The data informed us that Lean management implementation is creating tensions because of the users’ confusion about how to promote standardization and in the same time promote continuous improvement. From their point of view, both practices are conflicting and they cannot do both so they tend to resolve the problem by choosing one side of the paradox such as standardization alone or creativity alone. They find it very confusing to ask their teams to be both. New vs. old This paradox denotes the conflict between new teachings and old teachings. In this paradox there is tension because of the new teachings, sometimes people are confused because they sometimes the new replaces the old and other times the new builds on the old. “All of sudden, you tell me ten years later, I need to change the way I am doing things...” He/she is concerned about the new teachings and the new practices that come with Lean management but he/she are mainly concerned about the change and coping with chan ge. Another participant was more open to the new ideas and ways of doing business. He/she explained: “What we have been doing for the last six or seven years ago is not going to work in this day and age. So it is definitely a mind-set thing.” From his/her point of view new learnings are a must to cope with the changes in life and in the organization as well. Control vs. flexibility This paradox is related to the conflict of how much control a leader should maintain and how much flexibility he/she should exert. One of our participants explained how he/she handles such a paradox: “If I am ultimately accountable for the delivery of something but I am dependent on someone else, I almost need to informally contract that person to say “you need to do a specification ... And then I need to hold that person to it. If it then becomes a conflict situation… then obviously I need to say “what were the reasons, what can we do to sort it out?’ If we can’t sort it out between the two of us and I am still accountable for it, then obviously I need to escalate it.” He/she have found a balance to give autonomy to his/her team while maintaining enough control. In another case the participant was more flexible than controlling and explained: “I think for myself personally, I don’t have any concerns with not having control… I might be, at the end of the day responsible… So for me it is about setting the framework and ensuring that whoever is taking control understands delivery dates... But at the end of the day the end result is something that I haven’t controlled completely. But I still have some part of how it is delivered and when...” He/she depends on putting a framework and equip her team with the right tools to perform and he/she gives them flexibility to work. For him/her it is only a conflict if that person does not d eliver. Time vs. quality This paradox is very interesting because it was not discussed in the literature before but the participant who raised it managed to frame it well. This paradox refers to conflict about time and quality. He/she works in a call centre and the heart of the operation is customer satisfaction and also the consultant availability to take the next call. He/she is struggling to find the balance between the quality of service delivered to his/her client and how long that service take. “So you get staff that are feeling conflicted because…“what do you want? I know you want me to be available but you also want me to help this client. What do you PAGE 8

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

want from me?” Then you as manager … are you giving them the tools and the time to do it? If it is a quick request… that you can help your client you can do it. You can go ‘unavailable’... But when it gets to a certain point, when we cannot manage because if you are off for over ten minutes it starts crippling our call centre… And that is how we manage to balance. Without that though it will be chaos. It will either be chaos because we are not allowing them to do anything, and they feel despondent and they cannot help their client or we let them do too much and we just cripple the call centre.” If he/she allows her team to take their time to service the clients properly, they will go “unavailable” and thus not be there for the next caller. Thus, the number of clients serviced will suffer. Thi s in turn led to the conflict between quality and quantity of service rendered to the client. He/she is still struggling to find the balance. He/she has used a time limit to accept the paradox so that the team will serve the client and not have an open time to do it.

Conclusion Through the investigation of the organizational paradoxes in Lean and the empirical evidence of this case study, we conclude that leaders in Lean management are facing several paradoxes daily. The evidence also showed that initial training for Lean management did not prepare them for the paradoxes. This research plays an important role in understanding the complexity of Lean management, and how Lean leadership skillsets need to be developed prior to embarking on the implementation in order to avoid unexpected setbacks and negative dynamics. Lean leaders must understand the nature of Lean paradoxes, their impact on individuals and organizations, and how to effectively manage tensions when they are made salient. Understanding how the paradoxes in Lean are best managed requires training and continuous learning that helps to uncover the intricacies of Lean and hence failure could not be seen as the enemy in this environment because the management approaches largely focus on learning. Leaders should be prepared and trained for paradox management since knowing the distinction of paradox management completely reshapes the exploration of the challenge at hand and how challenges are framed and how resolutions are communicated As Handy (1995 pp.12-13) wrote “paradoxes are like the weather, something to be lived with, not solved, the worst aspects mitigated, the best enjoyed and used as clues to the way forward. Paradox has to be accepted, coped with and made sense of, in life in work, in community and among nations”

Future Research This is an under-researched area in Lean management in the South African context which means that there are opportunities for several research projects. We recommend conducting more qualitative and quantitative research in order to consolidate the findings of this research by investigating the organizational paradoxes in Lean in more companies. Moreover, these studies could attempt to identify the learning paradox in Lean. Future research could also expand and consolidate the repertoire of managerial responses used for dealing with tensions and paradoxes outside the continuous improvement practices of Lean. Another recommendation for future research could be entertaining the idea that Lean management could manage paradoxes by approaching the paradox as a PDCA cycle and as such introduce the element of time to accept or resolve the paradox.

References Aa, O. A., & Anthonsen, H. S. (2011). Management of Best Practices in Multinational Companies. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. Abolhassani, A., Layfield, K., & Gopalakrishnan, B. (2016). Lean and US manufacturing industry: popularity of PAGE 9

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

practices and implementation barriers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(7), 875–897. Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R., & Nelder, G. (2006). Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), 460–471. Agus, A., & Hajinoor, M. S. (2012). Lean production supply chain management as driver towards enhancing product quality and business performance: Case study of manufacturing companies in Malaysia. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(1), 92–121. Amer, H., & Shaw, C. (2014). Lean Leadership Paradoxes: A Systematic Literature Review. In the 5th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (pp. 272–238). Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Barnes, J., Bessant, J., Dunne, N., & Morris, M. (2001). Developing manufacturing competitiveness within South African industry: The role of middle management. Technovation, 21, 293–309. Beach, P. G., & Joyce, J. (2009). Escape from Flatland: Using Polarity Management to Coach Organizational Leaders from a Higher Perspective. International Journal of Coaching in Organisations, 7(2), 64–83. Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 56–72. Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C., & Figelj, R. R. (2013). Managing dualities for efficiency and effectiveness of organisations. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 113(3), 423–442. Bloodgood, J. M., & Chae, B. (2010). Organizational paradoxes: dynamic shifting and integrative management. Management Decision, 48(1), 85–104. Dombrowski, U., Mielke, T., & Engel, C. (2012). Knowledge Management in Lean Production Systems. Procedia CIRP, 3, 436–441. Handy, C. (1995). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S., & Rane, S. B. (2014). Exploring barriers in lean implementation. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 5(2), 122–148. Kojima, S., & Kaplinsky, R. (2004). The use of a lean production i ndex in explaining the transition to global competitiveness: The auto components sector in South Africa. Technovation, 24, 199–206. Laureani, A., & Antony, J. (2012). Critical success factors for the effective implementation of Lean Sigma: Results from an empirical study and agenda for future research. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(4), 274–283. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. Lewis, M., Andriopoulos, C., & Smi th, W. K. (2014). Paradoxical Leadership to Enable Strategic Agility. California Management Review, 56(3), 58–77. Lüscher, L., Lewis, M., & Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 491–502. Lüscher, L. S., Lewis, M. W., & Scher, L. S. L. (2008). Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking : Working Through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240. Maalouf, M. (2013). Sustaining lean Strategies for Dealing with Organizational Paradoxes. Copenhagen Business School. Moyano-Fuentes, J., & Sacristán-Díaz, M. (2012). Learning on lean: a review of thinking and research. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(5), 551–582. Netland, T. H. (2015). Critical success factors for implementing lean production: the effect of contingencies. International Journal of Production Research, 7543(October), 1–16. PAGE 10

IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANAGEMENT SYTEMS: ARE YOU READY FOR PARADOX! A CASE STUDY OF SOUTH AFRICAN FINANCIAL ORGANIZATION

Pedersen, E. R. G., & Huniche, M. (2011). Determinants of lean success and fai lure in the Danish public sector: A negotiated order perspective. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(5), 403–420. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(4), 562–578. Repenning, N., & Sterman, J. (2001). Creating and sustaining process improvement. California Management Review, 43(4), 64–88. Roulston, K. (2008). Conversational Interviewing. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 128–130). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Scherrer-Rathje, M., Boyle, T. a., & Deflorin, P. (2009). Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation. Business Horizons, 52(1), 79–88. Shreiber, N., & Chakravarthy, B. (2007). Leading Paradoxically. European Business Forum, 4(30), 29–33. Sim, K. L., & Rogers, J. W. (2009). Implementing lean production systems: barriers to change. Management Research News, 32(1), 37–49. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organzining. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. Spear, S., & Bowen, H. K. (1999). Decoding the DNA of Toyota Production. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 96– 108. Stålberg, L., & Fundin, A. (2014). Supporting the integration of improvement approaches into operations. In 58th European Organization for Quality Congress. Gothenberg, Sweden. Vermaak, T. D. (2008). Critical Success Factors For The Implementation Of Lean Thinking In South Africa. University of Johannesburg. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

PAGE 11