Cascading lean: Longitudinal, multi-level study of work values and lean-team performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cascading Lean: Longitudinal, Multi-level Study of Work Values and Lean-team PerformanceStudy objective: As more-and-more organizational units adopt the Lean philosophy, their members have to subscribe to continuous process improvement-type values and share their ideas for reducing waste and increasing customer-orientation. Unfortunately, many Lean initiatives fail and leadership is often seen as the main cause.Even though Lean leaders' values have been explored, we know little about their multilevel congruence with both organizational and other team member values, as well as their relation to sustained Lean-team performance.We answer, therefore, the question: How are Lean organizational values aligned with and transmitted via Lean (team) leaders to their teams and, once aligned, do they lead to sustained Lean-team performance over time?Methodology: This exploratory, abductive study examined five Dutch highperforming Lean work teams from five organizations.We studied over two years: 1) documents stating official organizational values; 2) a survey of all the team leaders and members, at two points in time, following Brown and Trevio's (2009) work values clusters; 3) informal interviews with team leaders, members and HR officers during our two one-week site visits per team; and 4) archival objective team performance data, including sickness absence and output quality.Findings: The organizational, team leaders' and members' values constellations were relatively stable.Both team leaders and their members ranked their selftranscendence and openness-to-change values as most dominant.The teams that had aligned their values well, performed best over time.Discussion: Propositions are presented which argue that Lean teams thrive on value alignment and values cascading among the examined actors herein.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".