Picture of athlete cycling

Open Access research with a real impact on health...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde's Open Access research outputs. Strathprints provides access to thousands of Open Access research papers by Strathclyde researchers, including by researchers from the Physical Activity for Health Group based within the School of Psychological Sciences & Health. Research here seeks to better understand how and why physical activity improves health, gain a better understanding of the amount, intensity, and type of physical activity needed for health benefits, and evaluate the effect of interventions to promote physical activity.

Explore open research content by Physical Activity for Health...

Uncomfortable truths - teamworking under lean in the UK

Carter, Bob and Danford, Andrew and Howcroft, Debra and Richardson, Helen and Smith, Andrew and Taylor, Phil (2016) Uncomfortable truths - teamworking under lean in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management. ISSN 0958-5192

[img] Text (Carter-etal-IJHRM-2016-uncomfortable-truths-teamworking-under-lean-in-the)
Carter_etal_IJHRM_2016_uncomfortable_truths_teamworking_under_lean_in_the.pdf - Accepted Author Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only until 19 July 2017.

Download (486kB) | Request a copy from the Strathclyde author

Abstract

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.