TY - JOUR
T1 - Uncomfortable truths - teamworking under lean in the UK
AU - Carter, Bob
AU - Danford, Andrew
AU - Howcroft, Debra
AU - Richardson, Helen
AU - Smith, Andrew
AU - Taylor, Phil
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Human Resource Management on 29/01/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09585192.2015.1111251
PY - 2017/2/1
Y1 - 2017/2/1
N2 - This article responds to a recent contribution to this journal. Procter and Radnor (2014) provide an account of teamworking in the UK Civil Service, specifically Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which focuses on the relationship between recently implemented lean work organisation and teams and teamworking. This intervention is prompted by criticism of the present authors’ published research into lean in the same locus (e.g. Carter et al, 2011a;b; 2013 a;b). Procter and Radnor claim, without foundation we argue, that our work is ‘one-sided’ and that theirs delivers a ‘more nuanced’ analysis of lean in this government department and, it follows, of the lean phenomenon more generally. Our riposte critiques their article on several grounds. Firstly, it suffers from problems of logic and construction, conceptual confusion and definitional imprecision. Methodological difficulties and inconsistent evidence contribute additionally to analytical weakness. Included in our response are empirical findings on teamworking at HMRC, which challenge Proctor and Radnor’s evidential basis and further reveal the shortcomings of their interpretation.
AB - This article responds to a recent contribution to this journal. Procter and Radnor (2014) provide an account of teamworking in the UK Civil Service, specifically Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which focuses on the relationship between recently implemented lean work organisation and teams and teamworking. This intervention is prompted by criticism of the present authors’ published research into lean in the same locus (e.g. Carter et al, 2011a;b; 2013 a;b). Procter and Radnor claim, without foundation we argue, that our work is ‘one-sided’ and that theirs delivers a ‘more nuanced’ analysis of lean in this government department and, it follows, of the lean phenomenon more generally. Our riposte critiques their article on several grounds. Firstly, it suffers from problems of logic and construction, conceptual confusion and definitional imprecision. Methodological difficulties and inconsistent evidence contribute additionally to analytical weakness. Included in our response are empirical findings on teamworking at HMRC, which challenge Proctor and Radnor’s evidential basis and further reveal the shortcomings of their interpretation.
KW - lean
KW - lean working
KW - teams
KW - teamworking
KW - HRM
KW - targets
KW - new public management
KW - HMRC
UR - http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20#.VXhatFIYGSp
U2 - 10.1080/09585192.2015.1111251
DO - 10.1080/09585192.2015.1111251
M3 - Article
SN - 0958-5192
VL - 28
SP - 449
EP - 467
JO - International Journal of Human Resource Management
JF - International Journal of Human Resource Management
IS - 3
ER -