the relationships among leadershipstyle, lean ... · lean manufacturing practice, operational...

106 SUTHIPARITHAT Vol.31 No.99 July - September 2017

ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างภาวะผู้น�า ผลการปฎิบัติด้านการผลิตแบบลนี การด�าเนินงาน การเงิน และสภาพแวดล้อมทีย่ั่งยืน

THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG LEADERSHIPSTYLE, LEAN MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE, FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, AND SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT

ปิยฉัตร บูระวัฒน์*Piyachat Burawat*

*อาจารย์ประจ�าคณะบริหารธุรกิจมหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีราชมงคลธัญบุรี* Lecturer, Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi* Email: [email protected]

สุทธิปริทัศน์ ปีที่31ฉบับที่99กรกฎาคม-กันยายน2560 107

บทคัดย่อ การศึกษานีม้วีตัถปุระสงค์เพ่ือทดสอบความสมัพันธ์ระหว่างภาวะผูน้�าระบบการผลิตแบบลนีประสิทธภิาพการด�าเนนิงานประสิทธภิาพทางการเงนิและประสิทธภิาพทีย่ั่งยืนซึง่ใช้วธิกีารศึกษาแบบผสมระหว่างวธิกีารเชิงปรมิาณและวธิกีารเชิงคุณภาพวธิกีารเชิงปรมิาณใช้การวจิยัเชิงส�ารวจโดยท�าการเกบ็รวบรวมข้อมลูจากพนกังานปัจจบุนัซึง่ด�ารงต�าแหน่งผูจ้ดัการระดบักลางและระดบัสงูในอุตสาหกรรมการผลิตในประเทศไทยจ�านวน293 คน การวิเคราะห์ข้อมูลประชากรด้วยสถิติเชิงพรรณนา การวิเคราะห์ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างตัวแปรและความสัมพันธ์ระดับโครงสร้างด้วยเทคนิคการสร้างสมการโครงสร้างและผลการศึกษาพบว่าระดับการประยุกต์ใช้ลนีในบรษิทัขนาดกลางและเลก็กับบรษิทัขนาดใหญ่มคีวามแตกต่างกนัอย่างมนียัส�าคัญโดยทีบ่รษิทัขนาดกลางและเล็กมีการประยุกต์ใช้ระบบการผลิตแบบลีนในระดับปานกลางในขณะที่บริษัทขนาดใหญ่มีการประยุกต์ระบบการผลติแบบลีนในระดบัค่อนข้างมากย่ิงไปกว่านัน้การศึกษายังพบว่ามคีวามสัมพันธ์เชิงบวกระหว่างภาวะผูน้�าแบบแลกเปลีย่นภาวะผู้น�าแบบย่ังยืนและภาวะผู้น�าแบบหลีกเลี่ยงกับระบบการผลิตแบบลีนและพบว่ามีความสมัพันธ์เชิงบวกระหว่างระบบการผลิตแบบลนีกับผลตอบแทนต่อผูถื้อหุน้ผลการปฎบิตัด้ิานการด�าเนนิงานด้านการเงนิด้านสิ่งแวดล้อม และสังคม นอกจากนี้ผลการศึกษายังพบว่า ประเภทของอุตสาหกรรมและขนาดของบริษัทไม่ส่งผลกระทบต่อความสัมพันธ์ของโมเดลทัง้ในระดบัโครงสร้างและระดบัเส้นทางในด้านการศึกษาเชิงคุณภาพท�าการเกบ็ข้อมลูด้วยวธิกีารสมัภาษณ์เชิงลกึกับผูจ้ดัการในระดบักลางและระดบัสูงทีท่�างานในอุตสาหกรรมการผลิตทัง้บรษิทัขนาดเลก็ขนาดกลางและขนาดใหญ่จ�านวน40คนผลการศึกษาพบว่าบรษิทัขนาดใหญ่ให้ความส�าคัญกบัการประยุกต์ใช้ระบบการผลิตแบบลีนมากกว่าบริษัทขนาดเล็ก ซึ่งสนับสนุนผลการศึกษาที่ได้จากการศึกษาเชิงปริมาณ และผลการศึกษาพบว่า ความซับซ้อนทางการแข่งขันทางธุรกิจส่งผลให้บริษัทไม่ต้องการให้เกิดการเปลี่ยนแปลงดังนั้นผู้จัดการเลือกใช้วิธีการแลกเปลี่ยนความคิดเห็นและการให้รางวัลกับพนักงานมากกว่าการไปสร้างแรงบันดาลใจหรือกระตุ้นให้พนักงานต้องการมีการเปลี่ยนแปลง

ค�ำส�ำคัญ: ภาวะผู้น�าระบบการผลิตแบบลีนประสิทธิภาพการด�าเนินงานประสิทธิภาพการเงิน ประสิทธิภาพด้านสิ่งแวดล้อมและสังคม

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the relationships among leadership style,

leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalperformance,financialperformance,andsustainableperformance;thereby,thestudywasconductedandaccomplishedbymeansofmixedmethods.Consideringthequantitativeapproach,asurveywasconductedwith293currentmiddleandtopmanagersworkinginThaimanufacturingindustry.Demographicdatawasanalyzedbydescriptivestatisticswhile relationshipsamongvariablesweretestedbystructuralequationmodeling.Thefindingsreportedthattherewasasignificantdifferentlevelofleanmanufacturingpracticebetweenthesmallandmediumcompaniesandthelargecompanies.Thesmallandmediumfirmsappliedleanmanufacturingpracticeatsomeextentwhereasthelargeonesappliedleanmanufacturingpracticeatextensiveextent.Inaddition,thefindingsrevealedthattherewerepositiverelationshipsbetweentransactionalleadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice,sustainableleadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice,passiveavoidantandleanmanufacturingpractice, leanmanufacturingpracticeandreturnonequity,leanmanufacturingpracticeandoperationalperformance,leanmanufacturingpracticeandfinancialperformance,andleanmanufacturingpracticeandenvironmentalandsocialperformance.Theresultfurtherrevealedthatbothstructuralandpathlevelwerenotdifferentacrossthetypesofindustryandsizesofcompany.Qualitativeapproachwascarriedoutbyin-depthinterviewwith40currentmiddleandtopmanagersworkinginsmall,medium,andlargemanufacturingcompanies.Accordingtothecomplexityofbusinesscompetition;thus,organizationdidnotneedtobechanged.Therefore,themanagerswereinterestedinexchangingopinionandprovidingrewardswithemployeesandratherthaninspiringthemtobechanged.Moreover,thelargecompaniesfocusedmoreonleanmanufacturingpracticeratherthansmallercompanies,whichconfirmedthequantitativeresult.

Keywords: Leadership,LeanManufacturing,OperationalPerformance,FinancialPerformance, EnvironmentalandSocialPerformance


Introduction Currently, globalization makes communication free without borders. In addition, asaconsequenceofanestablishmentofASEANEconomicCommunity(AEC)in2015,therehasbeenafiercecompetitioninbothdomesticandinternationalmarkets.Therefore,manufacturingfirmsneedtoexplorestrategiesthatcanincreaselevelofproductivityandqualitywhiledecreasingcostsanddeliveryleadtimetoconsumers,allofwhichrequirethecooperationofallpartiesfromsuppliers,subcontractors,employees,andmanagementteams.Themajorityofproductionmakershavechosencontinuousimprovementprogramsastheirprincipalstrategicinitiativestoincreaselevelofcustomerservice,quality,andoveralltotalvaluethatdelivertotheirconsumers.Presently,strategiesofcontinuousimprovementhaveinitiallyevolvedfromtheToyotaproductionsystem(TPS),whichisthecombinationofthequalitytheoriesofUnitedStatesoriginsbyJuran,Deming,andothers(Womack&Jones,1996;Lathin&Mitchell,2001;Marynell,2013).ThesuccessofTPSisbasedontheefficientmanagementofrelationships,bothtop-downandbottom-up,resultinginorganizationalchanges.TPSiscomposedofvariousprogramssuchasTotalQualityManagement(TQM),six-sigma,leanmanufacturing,justintime,andothertheoryoflimitations(Marynell,2013). Manufacturers are climbing on the lean bandwagon in droves. The IndustryWeek/MPICensusshowsthatnearly70%ofallplantsarecurrentlyemployingleanmanufacturingasanimprovementmethodology;however,only2%ofestablishmentsansweringthesurveyhavecompletelyaccomplished theirgoalsand24%presentedaccomplishingsignificant results.Theremains,74%,acceptedthattheyarenotdoingwellwithlean.Morerecently,theresultsshowedthatmanycompaniesthatwontheexcellentleanmanufacturingawardsprovidedbytheShingoPrizecommittee,afterwinningtheaward,hadnotmaintainedtheirsuccess(Pay,2006). Considering the accomplished lean executions research, the important attributes forachievementdependonthetopmanagement’scommitment,theempoweringofworkers,evaluatingsuccessfulactivities,havinganobviouslyplanforimprovementprocess,establishingexplicitdirection,focus,andtargets(Forrester,1995;Leitner,2005;Spector&West,2006).Theseachievementattributesarerelatedtoresponsibilitiesandrolesofleadersfororganizationalchange,whicharerespectedasimportantbasicpillarsofleanmanufacturing.Theaccomplishmentofleaninitiativesanddevelopmentofacontinuousimprovementculturedependsupontheleadershipdeportationsandexecuteswithintheorganization(Found&Harvey,2007;Heymans,2002). Theexistingresearchesplaceanemphasisontherelationofleadershipbehaviorsandpracticesthatleadstosuccessfulleanexecutions.Theresearchpublicationsfailstoconsiderthatoneleadershipmodelmightnotbesuitableforachievementwithinleanpractices.ConsistentwithHerkness(2005), itrevealsthattransformational leadershipenlargestransactional leadershipbydevelopingontheinterchangesandreciprocationsbetweenmanagersandemployees.Insummary,thefindingsofthestudyaddtotheexistingempiricaldata,suggestingthatthetransformationalleadershipmodelisusefulwhentryingtoleadchange.Althoughseveralstudiesfocusontheeffectofleadershiponleanpractice,theypayattentiontoonlyoneindustry;thesimultaneousstudyonoverallindustryisstilllacking.Therefore,thisstudyintendstostudytheinfluenceoftransformational,transactional,andpassiveavoidantleadershiponleanmanufacturingpractices.


Thenewcategoryofleadershipparadigmcouldbeentitledsustainableleadershipfeaturedbythreeessentialprocesses,i.e.learningthroughdoingandhavinganobviousawarenessofindividualgoal,sensingofindividualmotivationsandexpectations,andsuccessfulinstressmanagementandadequateself-care(Casserley&Crichley,2010).Sincesustainableleadershipisinsufficientinacademicfield,thetheoreticalpremisehasnotbeencompletelydeveloped.Therefore,thisstudyintendstoexaminetheinfluenceofsustainableleadershiponleanmanufacturingexecutions,whicharetheincrementalcontributionstoacademicresearch. Laborproductivityiscriticaltothecompetition.Inaddition,itcanalsoincreasesustainablerevenue.Companywithhighercostswillresult inlowercompetitiveness,leadingtolossandwithdrawalfromthebusiness.Thailandlaborproductivity increasesby2%peryear,whichisverylowcomparedtoothercountries,suchasVietnamandChina,withtheincreaseby4%and10%,respectively(Tansakul&Sutthiwatanaruputh,2014).TheunitlaborcostsofThailandhaveincreasedby3%whileIndonesiafellby12%(Tansakul&Sutthiwatanaruputh,2014).Accordingtobothlowlevelofproductivityandhighlevelofunitlaborcosts,thecompetitivenessofThailandisreduced. Meanwhile,inventoryisoneofthemostexpensiveassetsofmanyfirms,presentingasmuchas50%oftotalinvestedcapital.Employershavelongacknowledgedthatwellmanagementininventoryisimportant.Inaddition,acompanycandeductcostsbydecreasinginventory.Ontheotherhand,productionmaystopandcustomersbecomedissatisfiedwhenanitemisoutofstock(Heizer&Render,2011). Accordingtolowlevelofproductivity,higherlaborcost,highlevelofinventoryaswellasadvancesintechnologyandscience,businessleadersandmanagersneedtofindstrategiesthatcanaddvaluetotheirproductsandreducelossesasmuchaspossible(Barney&Hesterly,2010).SinceToyotaappliedleanmanufacturingsuccessfully,withintwodecadesithasgainedmuchattention.Overall,thereviewofrelatedresearchespresentsthatexecutionofleanmanufacturingisusually related to increases inoperationalperformancemeasures.Themost regularlycitedadvantagesassociatedwithleanimplementationsareincreasinginemployeeproductivityandqualityofproduct,decreasing in leadtimedeliver tocustomer,cycletime,andmanufacturingcosts(Marynell,2013;Sakakibara,Flynn,Schroeder,&Morris,1997).However,somestudiesfoundthatsomedimensionsofleanmanufacturingarerelatedtofirmperformance.Inaddition,somestudiesfoundthatthereisnorelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingandperformance(Hibadullah,Fuzi,ChiekDesa,&Zamri,2013;Kaplan&Norton,1992)Meanwhile,FullertonandWempe(2009)reportedthatthereisrelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingandfinancialperformancethroughoperationalperformance. Regardingtheaboveconcepts,therelationshipsamongleadershipstyle,leanmanufacturing,andperformanceareambiguous.Thus,thisstudyproposestoexaminethesimultaneousrelationshipsamongtransformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,passiveavoidantleadership,sustainableleadership,leanmanufacturingpractices,returnonequity,overallefficiency,profit,andsustainabilityperformance(operational,financial,andenvironmentalandsocialperformance)inThaimanufacturingindustry.Theresultsofthisstudyprovideenlightenmentinformationinanefficientformforafirm’soperationalsystem,whichleadstosustainableimprovementintheglobalcompetitiveness.


Literature Review Presently,organizationsattemptveryhardtogainvictoryintheaggressiverivalry,whichisdifficulttoachievebyonlyonealternative,e.g.growingorderstogetprofit.Therefore,tobemorecompetitiveortosurviveinsuchfiercecompetition,theorganizationshavetoresorttotheothercrucialways,suchasreducingthecosts.Accordingly,lessthan24%ofcompanieswithleanprogramsaresuccessful(Pay,2006).Consideringresearchonsuccessfulleanimplementations,theseaccomplishmentattributesarerelatedtoleadership’sroleandresponsibilitiesfororganizationalchange,whichareviewedimportantwithinthebasicpremisesofleanpractices.

Leadership style Overthepast50yearsvariousleadershipstyleshavebeencreated,studied,paralleled,andcriticizedwiththeendeavortodescribetheleadershipconceptualmodels(Northouse,2004).Theexistingresearchescanbeclassifiedintothefollowingfourmanners,i.e.traittheory,behavioraltheory,contingencytheory,andtransformationalleadership(Herkness,2005). Theearly20thcenturystudyinleadershipareasemphasizedontheindividualleadercharacteristics in order to clarify their success (Mann, Gibbard, & Hartman, 1967; Stogdill,1974).Afterthat,theoristscomprehendedtherequirementforawiderperspectivetoleadershipsuccessfulness and started learning behaviors of leaders. Themodel of behavioral leadershipattemptstocomprehendtheinteractionbetweenleaderandlabor.Otheracademiciansstruggledtoelaboratefurtherleadershiptheoryinordertoclarifytheresponsibilitythatdiversifiedcontextson the leadership situation which is known as contingency leadership theory. More recentresearcheshaveemphasizedon the successof leaderswhoperform in an inspirational andvisionaryabilitywhichisregardedastransformationalleadership(Bass,1988;Burns,1978).Modernstudypresentsthattransformationalleaderscanenhancetheoverallorganizationalsuccessandinnovation;therefore,theyareperfectlyappropriatedtoconductchangingincompany(Northouse,2004).Thenewcategoryofleadershipparadigmcouldbeentitledsustainableleadershipwhichisreliedontheconceptofethicalleadership(Brown&Trevino,2005),butenlargesitsapplicationareabyassertingthatitisethicalthatwetakeintoconsiderationtherequirementsofabroaderstakeholder’sscopealongwithnextgenerationsandthenaturalenvironment.Comparingtoothertheoriesofleadership,sustainableleadershipisdifferentiatedbyseekingthesustainabilityvalueatlevelsofpersonal,organizational,socialandecologicalforbothexistingandnextgenerations(Olivier,2012).

Lean Manufacturing Practice Lean manufacturing or production is an operation improvement strategy used toimprovethemanufactureanddeliveryofaproduct(toacustomer’sexpectation)bymeansofapurpose-designedfacilityandprocess,utilizinganinterconnectedarrayofsupplychains.Itisaprogramthatcanbeadoptedbybothmatureandnewmanufacturingentities(Womack&Jones,1996).Maturemanufacturingentitiesrepresentfacilitiesproducingaparticularproduct,whichhavealowrateofproductandprocessinnovation.Tostaycompetitive,maturemanufacturershavetofocusoncostreduction,improvedproductivitythroughbettercapacityutilization,incrementalimprovementand theadoptionofmoreefficient technologies. Incontrast,newmanufacturing


entitieslackmarketshareandproductdemand;therefore,fewerworkersareneeded(Jeserich,Mason,&Toft,2005).Focusingonprocessdevelopment,solvingcomplextechnicalproblems,rapidtimetomarket,fastramp-upanddesignformanufacturabilityarethemainfactorsthatcurtailthenumberofemployees’newmanufacturingentities(Hayes,Pisano,Upton,&Wheelwright,2005). Inacademicpublications,leanimplementationwasfrequentlycoinedasToyotaproductionsystem(TPS),beginninginToyotaMotorManufacturingCompanyaftertheSecondWorldWar.Accordingly,thelimitedresourcesresultedinchallenginginproductionfacilitiesmanagementwhichprovokedmanagersworkingforToyotatocreatenumerousTPSelementsaimingatdecreasingwaste(Liker,1998;Pavnaskar,Gersheenson,Jambekar,2003).Therefore,leanisabouttheconsumptionoflowerresources(workinghour,material,machinery,andproductionarea)tomakethesameorhigherproductquantity.Still,theinterestfromwesternmanufacturingindustrywaslimitedinleanmanufacturingaslongastheperformancedistinctionsbetweenToyotaandotherautomotivecompanieswereunderlinedbythebookwrittenbyWomack,Jones,andRoos(1990),namely“TheMachinethatChangedtheWorld”,whichalsocoinedthejargonleanmanufacturing(orleanproduction).Womacketal.(1990)proposedthatthepracticesandinfrastructuresthatencourageleanmanufacturingobviouslysupportedathesisoftransferenceandthecapacityofnon-Japaneseandnon-carmakeremulationdependedontheassumptionthatmanufacturingtechnologiesandproductionissuesweregeneralmanagementproblems.Leanapplicationisnotrestrictedtoonlycarmaker,butithasalsobeenacceptedinabroaderscopeofallproductionindustries,unionizedoranon-unionized(ShahandWard2003),allcountries(Anand&Kodali,2008;Cua,McKone,&Schroeder2001),andlarge,medium,aswellassmallfirms(Whiteetal.,1999). Leanproductionisclassifiedbytheacademiciancommunitymostlyintothreelevels.Thefirstlevelassociateswithwastedeliminationfromtheproductionprocess(Ohno,1988;Womack&Jones,1996)and theefficiency tomake theexcellentqualityproducts thatcan fulfill theneedoffinalbuyers.Forthesecondlevel,someresearchersconstrueleanasarulecontrollingproductionprocess(Spear&Bowen,1999).Thefinallevelisseenascombinationoftechniquesandmeans(Basu,2009;Hines,Rich,&Esain,1999;Shah&Ward,2003)intendedatremovingwaste. ShahandWard(2003)examinedtheimplementationof22leanexecutionsandseparatedthemintofourcategories,i.e.just-in-time(JIT),totalqualitymanagement(TQM),totalproductivemanagement(TPM),andhumanresourcemanagement(HRM).Inaddition,ShahandWard(2007)furtherstatedthatleanisamulti-dimensionalattributeandtheycreatedtendivergentattributes/aspectstocharacterizeleanmanufacturingsystem,i.e.(1)supplierfeedback,regardingthecompanythathasprofoundcommunicationwithsuppliersandprovidesfeedbacktotheirsupplierondeliveryandquality,(2)justintimedeliverybysuppliers,orkeysuppliersdeliveringonatimebasis,(3)supplierdevelopment,meaningtheorganizationkeepstransmissiononessentialproblemswithsuppliersincorporate-level;suppliersbecomeengagedtoreduceannualcostanddeliverytime,andimproveproductquality,(4)customerinvolvement,referringtotheorganizationhavingintimatecommunicationwithbuyers,(5)pullsystem,meaningthatmanufacturerswillproduceonlyrequiredquantityorderedbythepurchaser,(6)continuousflow,orequipmentbeingdividedtoproduceacontinuousflowoffamiliesofgoods;theproductionspeedisdirectlyrelatedtothebuyerrequirementratio,(7)setuptimereduction,respectingtotheorganizationthathasashorttimeofchangingfromoneproducttypetoothertype,(8)totalproductive/preventivemaintenance,or


regularschedulesforequipmentmaintenance,(9)statisticalprocesscontrol,ormostprocesses/toolsontheproductionlinearecontrolledbystatisticalprocess,and(10)employeeinvolvement,referringtooperatingworkerswhoareessentialintheteamstosuggestandsolveproductionproblem. Study has been proceeded to discover the crucial accomplishment factors of leanproductionsoastofulfillthespacebetweensuccessfulandunsuccessfulleanimplementation.Within the research studiesdiscovering the important accomplishment factors related to leanprogram,oneregularfactorwhichcontinuestobethemostimportantisthetopmanagementcommitmentandleadership(Soriano-Meier&Forrester,2002;Spector&West,2006).Therecentresearchliteraturesabouttherelationshipbetweenleadershipandleanpracticesareratherscarce.Besides,thesaidresearchesmostlyfocusononlyonetypeofleadershipcontributingtothesuccessfulapplicationofleanpractice.ConsistentwithHerkness(2005),theresearchrevealedthattransformationalleadershipaddstransactionalleadershipbycreatingtheexchangesbetweenleadersandfollowersanditfurthersuggestedthatthetransformationalleadershipmodelisusefulwhentryingtoleadchange.Therefore,thisstudyisintendedtostudytheinfluenceofleadershiponleanmanufacturing.

Sustainable Performance Accordingtotheincreasingattentionofallkindsofstakeholdersincompanyactivitiesinrecentrivalrysituation,therehavebeencrowdedresearchesinfieldofcorporatesustainabilityperformanceevaluationfrombothpractitionersandacademicians.Firmsarestrugglingtoaccomplishlong-termbenefitsbyapplyingsustainabilityactivitiesasprincipalorganizationalstrategy(Chabowski,Mena,&Gonzalez-Padron,2011;Cruz,Pedrozo,&Estivalete,2006). Duringpositiveenlargementofcorporatesustainabilityperformance,organizationalperformancefollowsthesamepath,orviceversa,requiringagoodquantityofstudy.TakalaandPallab(2000)proposedthatcorporatesustainabilityperformancegenerallyemphasizesontheenvironmental,social,andeconomicperformanceofsustainabledevelopment.Meanwhile,sustainabilityperformanceisdefinedbySchalteggerandWagner(2006)astheperformanceofafirminallaspectsandforalldriverofcorporatesustainability.Fiksel,Mcdaniel,&Mendenhall, (1999)mentioned that itextendsbeyondthesingleorganizationboundariesandtypicallyaddressestheperformanceofbothupstreamsuppliersanddownstreamconsumersinthevaluechain. Wheresustainabilityperformanceassessesareinformedbyprivatesectorcompanies,thereisatendencytoalignthesewiththeGlobalReportingInitiative(GRI)index(Adams,Muir,&Hoque,2014)withacombinationofstand-alonesustainabilityreportsandmixedannual/financialreportswithsustainabilityreporting.ThestudyofKPMG(2007)reportedthat83percentoftop500Australianfirmsin2006presentedstandalonesustainabilityreports;however,morepresently,anincreasingquantityoforganizationsarepresentingtheirsustainabilityperformancewiththemeasurementofsustainabilityperformancefinancialtodemonstrate,oratleasttoprovidetheimpression,thatsustainabilityisintegratedindecision-making,anotionbecomingknownasintegratedreporting(EconomistIntelligenceUnit,2010).Theorganizations,whoseaimisoutstandinglyseen(atleastbythemselves)asbeingoneofeconomicreturn,mightbegreaterreadilyexcusedforseparatelyreportingvoluntarysustainabilityassesses.


Inconclusion,sustainabilityperformanceembracesperformanceinrelatedwith:levelofemissionandnaturalresourcesaving;otherenvironmentalactivitiesandinitiatives;employmentfeatures;occupationalhealthandsafety;relationshipswithsocietyandcommunity;involvementofstakeholder;andeconomic impactsof theorganizationother than thosefinancialassessesappliedinthefinancialaccounts.Thepreviousstudydemonstratesthescarcityofaccountabilityforenvironmentalandsocialperformance.Althoughtherehasbeenagushofstudiesinthefieldofcorporatesustainabilityperformanceevaluationfrombothpractitionersandacademicians,thereisstillnoconcurreduniversalguidelineorstandard.Generally,therearesomemeasuresusuallymentionedorusedbyorganizationsinchoosingsustainabilityperformanceevaluates.

Theoretical Framework Theproposedframeworkistoinvestigatethesimultaneousrelationshipsamongleadershipstyle,leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalperformance,financialperformance,andsustainableperformance.

Figure 1Thetheoreticalframework

Research MethodologySamples and Procedures ThepopulationforthestudyenclosedmiddlemanagementandtopmanagementexecutivesofcompaniesrunninginThaimanufacturingindustry.BentlerandChou(1987)mentionedthat,underthetheoryofnormaldistribution,theproportionofsamplesizetoamountoffreeparametersshouldbeatleast5:1inordertoobtaintrustworthyparameterforecasts.Theamountoffreeparametersis43;therefore,thelowestsamplesizeequals215.Atotalof293samples(165respondentsfromsmallandmediumcompanies,128respondentsfromlargecompanies)were

9 least by themselves) as being one of economic return, might be greater readily excused for separately reporting voluntary sustainability assesses.

In conclusion, sustainability performance embraces performance in related with: level of emission and natural resource saving; other environmental activities and initiatives; employment features; occupational health and safety; relationships with society and community; involvement of stakeholder; and economic impacts of the organization other than those financial assesses applied in the financial accounts. The previous study demonstrates the scarcity of accountability for environmental and social performance. Although there has been a gush of studies in the field of corporate sustainability performance evaluation from both practitioners and academicians, there is still no concurred universal guideline or standard. Generally, there are some measures usually mentioned or used by organizations in choosing sustainability performance evaluates. Theoretical Framework

The proposed framework is to investigate the simultaneous relationships among leadership style, lean manufacturing practice, operational performance, financial performance, and sustainable performance.

Figure 1 The theoretical framework Research Methodology Samples and Procedures

The population for the study enclosed middle management and top management executives of companies running in Thai manufacturing industry. Bentler and Chou (1987) mentioned that, under the theory of normal distribution, the proportion of sample size to amount of free parameters should be at least 5:1 in order to obtain trustworthy parameter forecasts. The amount of free parameters is 43; therefore, the lowest sample size equals 215. A total of 293 samples (165 respondents from small and medium companies, 128 respondents from


gatheredin2016betweenAprilandNovemberbymeansofsimplerandomsamplingtogetherwithsnowballsampling.Thesimplerandomsamplingwasperformedbythreetechniques.First,thelettersauthorizedbytheuniversitytoaskpermissionstosendthepaperoronlinesurveytogetherwithpaperoronlinesurveyweresenttocompanieslistedintheFederationofThaiIndustry.Second,theoperatorswhomanagetheseminartopicconcerningmanufacturingindustrywerecommunicatedaccompaniedwith the lettersauthorizedby theuniversity toexplain theobjective,thesignificance,andtheadvantagesofthestudy.Authorizationstodistributethepaperquestionnairetotheirparticipantsinthisseminarwhoworkedformanagerpositionandabovewerecertainlyasked.Finally,thedeanofbusinessadministrationandengineeringfacultyofbothgovernmentandprivateuniversitywerecommunicatedaccompaniedwiththelettersauthorizedbytheuniversitytoexplaintheobjective,thesignificance,andtheadvantagesofthestudy.Authorizationstodistributethepaperquestionnairetotheirgraduatedstudentstudyinginmanufacturingandrelatedmajorwhileworkingformanagerpositionandabovewerecertainlyasked.Consideringsnowballsamplingmethod,therespondentswereinterviewedandaskedbyhighlyexperiencedinterviewers.Afterobservingtheinitialrespondent,theresearcheraskedforassistancefromtheinitialrespondentstohelpidentifypeoplewithanidenticalattributeofattentiveness.Inqualitativemethod,in-depthinterviewwasconductedfrom20participantsofsmallandmediumcompaniesand20participantsfromlargecompanieswhoworkedformiddleandtopmanagementposition.

Instruments Amixedmethodwasusedtoinvestigatethesimultaneousrelationshipsmodel.Quantitativemethodwasconductedbymeansofquestionnairesconsistingofsevenparts.Thefirstpartisdemographicinformationofrespondentsandinformationofthecompanies.Thelatterthreepartsaretransformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,andpassiveavoidantwhichwereevaluatedbyMLQForm5Xmodel.TherestincludesustainableleadershipwhichwasdevelopedbyAveryandBergsteiner(2011),leanmanufacturingwhichwasdevelopedbyShahandWard(2007),andsustainableperformanceindexwhichwasdevelopedbyGlobalReportingInitiative(GRI)(2014).Ontheotherhand,qualitativeinformationwascollectedbyin-depthinterviewcomposedofcurrentsituationofcompanies’leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalandfinancialperformance,overview,suggestions,discussions,anddesiredconsequencesofleanmanufacturingexecution.

Structure Equation Model (SEM) Wright(1921)describedthatSEMisastatisticaltechniqueforexaminingandforecastingcausalrelations,applyingacombinationofstatisticaldataandqualitativecausalassumptions.Thisstudyisextensivewithtwelvehypothesespresentedinfigure1.Sevenindicatorswereusedtodeterminethesuitabletheoreticalframeworkpresentedintable1.Theassociationsamongfactorsweremeasuredbyt-testrelatedtocriticalratios(C.R.)andp-value.


Table 1TheLowestThresholdofEachSevenIndicestoDetermineAppropriateModelFit

Model fit index Threshold/Minimum criterion

χ2orCMIN -shouldnotbesignificantata0.05threshold(p>0.05)(Hu&Bentler,1999)

χ2/dforCMIN/df -shouldbelessthan5.0tojudgethefitnessofthemodel(Bentler,1989)

CFI -shouldbegreaterthan0.9tojudgethegoodfit(Bentler&Bonett,1980)IFI -shouldbegreaterthan0.9tojudgethegoodfit(Bentler&Bonett,1980)AGFI -shouldbegreaterthan0.9tojudgethegoodfit(Jöreskog&Sörbom,

1996)- AGFI of 0.8 is sometimes proposed as sufficient as recommendedcut-off(Chau&Hu,2001)

PGFI - should begreater than0.5 to judge acceptable fit (Hair,Anderson,Tatham,&Black,1998)

RMSEA -shouldbelessthan0.05tojudgegoodfit,andbetween0.05and0.08tojudgereasonablefit(Browne&Cudeck,1993)

Source:Burawat,Kuntonbutr,&Mechinda(2014).

ResultsQuantitative Results Theentire293of900questionnaires(responserate32.56%)wereappliedtodoanalysis.Themajorityoftherespondentsweremale,accountingfor55.6%,withageabove40yearsoldaccountingfor32.1%.Theworkingpositionthereofwasgeneral/factory/productionmanager,whichaccountedfor38.23%.MostofthemhadBachelor’sdegree,whichaccountedfor74.1%.Mostly,theageofcompanywasabove15years,accountingfor50.2%,smallandmediumsize,accountingfor56.3%,operatinginnon-automotive/partindustry,accountingfor78.8%,withoutunionoflabor,accountingfor76.1%,andlengthofleanapplicationlessthan3years,accountingfor70.6%. Theskewnessandkurtosisvalueswhichdeterminethenormaldistributionshouldvaryfrom-3to+3(Decarlo,1997;Stuart&Ord,1994).Thefindingsreportedthattheskewnessvaluesvaryfrom-1.234to1.894,andthekurtosisvaluesvaryfrom-1.905to2.720.Meanwhile,thePearson’sbivariatecorrelationsofall relationshipsweresignificant.Therefore, itcouldbesummarizedthattheprincipleofnormaldistributionandlinearitywasaccepted. Consideringanoverview,respondentsevaluatedallfactors,i.e.transformationalleadership,transactionalleadership,sustainableleadership,leanmanufacturing,operationalperformance,andenvironmental and social performance, at extensive extent. Meanwhile, the passive avoidantleadershipwasevaluatedatlittleextent.Inaddition,financialperformancewasevaluatedatsomeextentwith1-10%increaseinfinancialnumber.


Model Fit and Hypothesis Testing The Chi-square is important statistics; however, a test of statistical significance isresponsivetosizeofsample,whichindicatesthatwhenthehugesamplesareemployed,theChi-squarestatisticnearlyalwaysdeniestheframework(Bentler&Bonnet,1980;Jöreskog&Sörbom,1996).Thus,manyresearcherssuggestedthataframeworkcouldalsobesatisfiedifthemostoffitindicesreportgoodadoptionassessesandonlyasmallnumbersofindicesarelowerthantheminimumcriterion(Bagozzi&Yi,1988;Fornell&Larcker,1981).EventhoughtheresultofChi-squarestatisticsoftherevisedproposedtheoreticalmodelreportedasignificantata0.05level,theleftoverfindingsweregreaterthanthelowestthresholdpresentedintable2.Therefore,itcouldbesummarizedthatthestructureofleadershipstyle,leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalperformance,financialperformance,andenvironmentalandsocialperformanceweresuitabletoexplaintheinterrelationshipsamongitemsandlatentvariables.

Table 2ModelFitIndexesoftheRevisedProposedTheoreticalModel

CMIN p-value df CMIN/df CFI IFI NFI TLI AGFI PGFI RMSEA

271.837 0.000 110 2.471 0.936 0.937 0.898 0.921 0.869 0.651 0.071

AIC (Default model) BCC (Saturated model) BIC (Independence model)

357.837 363.486 516.084

Aftermodel fitwas tested, thehypothesiswasexamined,startingwithexamineofregressionweightsignificance.Regardingoverallgroup,thep-valueofregressionweightsarelessthan0.05,exceptthattheinfluenceoftransformationalleadershiponleanmanufacturingpractice,effectofleanmanufacturingpracticeonoverallefficiencyandprofitareabove0.05.Thefindingsareconsistentwithbothsmallandmedium,andlargecompaniesaswellasbothautomotive/partandnon-automotive/partindustry.Therefore,itcanbesummarizedthatH2,H3,H4,H7,H8,H9,andH10aresupportedwhereasH1,H5andH6arerejected.Consequentlyregressionweightsofthreehypotheseswereremovedfromthestructuralmodel.Therevisedmodelisshowedinfigure2and3.


Figure 2Resultsoftestofsignificanceofregressionweight

Figure 3Revisedtheoreticalmodel

13

Figure 2 Results of test of significance of regression weight

Figure 3 Revised theoretical model

13

Figure 2 Results of test of significance of regression weight

Figure 3 Revised theoretical model


Figure 4Structuralmodelofrevisedframework

Table 3ResultsoftheRevisedTheoreticalModelHypothesesTesting

Estimate S.E. C.R. p-value

H2:Transactionalleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.434 0.078 5.588 ***H3:Passiveavoidantleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.135 0.031 4.322 ***H4:Sustainableleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.230 0.072 3.196 0.001H7:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Returnonequity 14.447 7.203 2.006 0.045H8:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Operationalperformance 0.611 0.074 8.278 ***H9:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Financialperformance 0.378 0.117 3.227 0.001H10:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Environmentalandsocial

performance0.689 0.084 8.194 ***

***p-value<0.001(p-valuelessthan0.001wasatthesignificantat0.001level)

14

Figure 4 Structural model of revised framework Table 3 Results of the Revised Theoretical Model Hypotheses Testing Estimate S.E. C.R. p-value H2: Transactional leadership ---> Lean manufacturing practice 0.434 0.078 5.588 *** H3: Passive avoidant leadership ---> Lean manufacturing practice 0.135 0.031 4.322 *** H4: Sustainable leadership ---> Lean manufacturing practice 0.230 0.072 3.196 0.001 H7: Lean manufacturing practice ---> Return on equity 14.447 7.203 2.006 0.045 H8: Lean manufacturing practice ---> Operational performance 0.611 0.074 8.278 *** H9: Lean manufacturing practice ---> Financial performance 0.378 0.117 3.227 0.001 H10: Lean manufacturing practice ---> Environmental and social performance 0.689 0.084 8.194 *** ***p-value< 0.001 (p-value less than 0.001 was at the significant at 0.001 level)


Table 4 Standardizeddirect,indirect,andtotaleffectamongvariablesoftherevisedtheoretical framework

StandardizedDirect effect

StandardizedIndirect effect

StandardizedTotal effect

H2:Transactionalleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.430 0.000 0.430H3:Passiveavoidantleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.212 0.000 0.212H4:Sustainableleadership ---> Leanmanufacturingpractice 0.233 0.000 0.233H7:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Returnonequity 0.122 0.000 0.122H8:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Operationalperformance 0.525 0.000 0.525H9:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Financialperformance 0.197 0.000 0.197H10:Leanmanufacturingpractice ---> Environmental and social

performance0.519 0.000 0.519

Moderate Effect Testing Regarding the moderate effect of automotive/part and non-automotive/part (H11),theChi-squareoftheunconstrainedis430.475anddegreeoffreedomis220,whereastheChi-squareofthefullyconstrainedis441.569anddegreeoffreedomis236.ThedifferenceoftheChi-squareis11.094anddegreeoffreedomis16.Thep-valueis0.804,whichcanbesummarizedthatthemodelisnotdifferentacrosstypesofindustry.Meanwhile,regardingthemoderateeffectofsizesofcompany(H12),theChi-squareoftheunconstrainedis442.140anddegreeoffreedomis220,whereastheChi-squareofthefullyconstrainedis429.088anddegreeoffreedomis236.ThedifferenceoftheChi-squareis6.948anddegreeoffreedomis16.Thep-valueis0.974,whichcanbesummarizedthatthemodelisnotdifferentacrosssizesofcompany.Thus,itcanbeconcludedthatbothH11andH12arerejected.

Qualitative Results Consideringquality,thein-depthinterviewwasconductedwithmiddleandtopmanagersworkingin20smallandmediummanufacturingcompaniesand20largemanufacturingcompanies.Accordingtotheresults,itwasfoundthattheorganizationalcomplexitylevelwasmoderate,whichdidnotneedtobechanged.Thus,managerswereinterestedinexchangingwithemployeesthaninspiringthemtobechanged.Moreover,thelargecompaniesfocusedmoreonleanmanufacturingpractice rather than smaller companies operating in fierce competitionwith small number ofemployees,whichdidnothaveenoughresourcestosetandcontrolleanmanufacturingsystem.Inaddition,managersproposedthattheyknewandappliedsomedimensionsofleanmanufacturingastheythoughtleanmanufacturingwassuitableforonlyautomotive/partindustry.

Discussions and ConclusionsHypothesis 1 Thefindingrevealedthatthere isnorelationshipbetweentransformational leadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice,opposedtoCheerawit,Napompech,andPanjakhajornsak(2014).However,itconfirmstheresultsofMarynell(2013)andLanglois(2015).Thisisbecausemostcompanieshaveoperatedlongerthan15years,andtheoperatingsystem,situationandcompetition


arequitestable,requiringlowerchange.Transformationalleadershipwillbeusefulwhenacompanyistryingtoleadchange.Hypothesis 2 Thefindingrevealedthatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweentransactionalleadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice,whichassertstheprecedingresearches,suchasthatofMarynell(2013).Thekeycharacteristicsforsuccessof leanmanufacturingpracticedependonthetopmanagementcommitment, theempoweringofworkers, top-downandbottom-uprelationships,assessingsuccessfulactivities,havinganobviousdefinitionofprocessimprovementplan,generatingexplicitconcentration,direction,andobjectives(Brown,Lamming,Bessant,&Jones,2006;Forrester,1995;Leitner,2005;Liker&Meier,2006;Longenecker,Moore,Petty,Palich,&McKinney,2006;Smalley,2005;Spector&West,2006),whichrequiresthecharacteristicsoftransactionalleadershiptobesucceeded.Hypothesis 3 The finding reported that there is a positive relationship between passive avoidantleadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice.Accordingtotheauthor’sknowledge,itisthefirsttimethattherelationshipbetweenpassiveavoidantleadershipandleanmanufacturingpracticehasbeenexplained,whichistheincrementalcontributiontoacademicresearch.Employeeshaveexperiencedontheirjobmorethanothers;thusmanagersshouldgivechancestothemtocreateandsharetheirsuggestionsaswellasfeedback,whichwillenhance leanmanufacturingandorganizationalsuccess.Hypothesis 4 Thefindingshowedthatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweensustainableleadershipandleanmanufacturingpractice.Accordingtotheauthor’sknowledge,itisthefirsttimethattherelationshipbetweensustainableleadershipandleanmanufacturingpracticehasbeenexplained,which is the incrementalcontributiontoacademicresearch.Leanmanufacturing involveswithbothinsidersandoutsiders,includingallemployees,suppliers,andcustomers.Leanmanufacturingrequiresmanagerswhopossessthesustainableleadership.Thiskindofleaderisabletocreatesuchefficientstrategiesthattheycandevelopanorganizationandbringaboutbetterandfasterlearning,makingtheorganizationmoreflexibleandadaptablethanitsrivals.Hypothesis 5 Thefindingpresentedthatthereisnorelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingpracticeand overall efficiency, which is not corresponding to the preceding publications, such asthoseofRahman,Laosirihongthong,&Sohal (2010)andKiatcharoenpol,Laosirihongthong,andChaiyawong(2015).This isbecauseoverallefficiencywasmeasuredbyusingtheirownerormanager’sexperiences,whichmaynotreflecttheactualnumbers.Hypothesis 6 Thefindingshowed that there isapositive relationshipbetween leanmanufacturingpracticeandprofit,whichisopposedtothestudyofMoori,Pescarmona,andKimura(2013).However,itconfirmsthestudiesofFullertonandWempe(2009),Hibadullahetal.,(2013),andJayaram,Vickery,andDroge(2008).Thisisduetothemediateeffectormoderateeffectofotherfactorsbetweenthisrelationshipsuchasoperationalperformance(Fullerton&Wempe2009)andlengthofleanmanufacturingadoption.


Hypothesis 7 Thefindingshowedthatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingpracticeandreturnonequity,whichassertstheprecedingpublications,suchasthatofOslen(2004).Organizationsimplementingleanmanufacturingwillreducecostandincreasesupplierrelationship,customersatisfaction,andhighlevelofnetprofit,whichresultsinhighlevelofreturnonequity.Hypothesis 8 Thefindingshowed that there isapositive relationshipbetween leanmanufacturingpracticeandoperationalperformance,whichassertstheprecedingpublications,suchasthoseofHallgrenandOlhanger(2009),Alsmadi,Almani,andJerisat(2012),andArawatiandMohd(2012).Companieswithhighlevelofleanmanufacturingwillgethigheroperationalperformancethancompetitorsinfasterdelivery,quickerandmoreaccurateresponse,lowersetuptimeandoperationalcost,higheroperationalperformance,customersatisfaction,operationalprofit,andimprovementofproductquality.Hypothesis 9 Thefindingshowed that there isapositive relationshipbetween leanmanufacturingpracticeandfinancialperformance,whichisnotanncompliancewiththestudyofMoorietal.(2013).However,itconfirmsthestudiesofFullertonandWempe(2009),Hibadullahetal.,(2013),andJayarametal.(2008).Thisisduetothemediateeffectormoderateeffectofotherfactorsbetweenthisrelationshipsuchasoperationalperformance(Fullerton&Wempe,2009)andlengthofleanmanufacturingadoption.Hypothesis 10 Theresultreportedthatthereisapositiverelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingpracticeandenvironmentalandsocialperformance.Basedontheauthor’sknowledge,itisthefirsttimethattherelationshipbetweenleanmanufacturingandenvironmentalandsocialperformancehasbeenexplained,which isthe incrementalcontributiontoacademicresearch.Notonly is leanmanufacturingpracticeassociatedwithinsiders,butitisalsorelatedtooutsiderssuchasdiversityofemployees,occupationalhealthandsafety,stakeholderinvolvementincommunity,socialandenvironmentalissues,communityrelations,naturalresourceconservation,andemissionlevels.Hypothesis 11 The result reported that the model is not different across automotive/part andnon-automotive/partwhichassertstheprecedingpublicationssuchasthatofWomacketal.(1990)suggestedthattheexplorationoftheenterprisemodel,theinfrastructureandpracticesthatsupportleanproduction,promotedexplicitlyathesisoftransferenceandtheabilityofnon-automotiveandnon-Japaneseemulationbaseduponthepremisethatmanufacturingproblemsandtechnologieswereuniversalproblemsfacingmanagement.Applicationofleanisnotlimitedtotheautomotivesectoronly,butithasalsofoundacceptanceinawiderangeofmanufacturingindustriesoperatingunderaunionizedoranon-unionizedenvironmentintheUS(Shah&Ward,2003)orelsewhere(Anand&Kodali,2008),andisbeingappliedinbigaswellassmallorganizations(Whiteetal.,1999).


Hypothesis 12 TheresultreportedthatthemodelisnotdifferentacrosssizeofcompanywhichassertstheprecedingresearchsuchasWhiteetal.(1999)andAnandandKodali(2008)suggestedthatleanmanufacturinghasfoundacceptanceinawiderangeofbothmanufacturingandelsewhere,andisbeinginbigaswellassmallcompanies.Largecompaniesrepresentfacilitiesproducingaparticularproduct,whichhavealowrateofprocessandproductinnovation.Tostaycompetitive,largemanufacturershavetofocusoncostreduction,improvedproductivitythroughhighercapacityutilization,incrementalimprovementandtheadoptionofmoreefficienttechnologies.Incontrast,smallmanufacturingentitieslackmarketshareandproductdemand;therefore,feweremployeesarerequired(Jeserichetal.,2005).Focusingonprocessdevelopment,solvingcomplextechnicalproblems,rapidtimetomarket,fastramp-upanddesignformanufacturabilityarethemainfactorsthatcurtailthenumberofemployees’newmanufacturingentities(Hayesetal.,2005).

RecommendationsImplications for Practice Theresultsoffersomeimplicationsforthepractitionersandentrepreneurs.Thedetailsareasfollows: 1)Theresultspresentedthattransactional,passiveavoidant,andsustainableleadershipcanincreaseextentofleanmanufacturingpractice. 2)Theresultsrevealedthatleanmanufacturingleadstohighlevelofreturnonequity,operational,financial,andenvironmentalandsocialperformance.Thus,managersshouldcreategoodandtwo-wayrelationship,sharing,caring,bottomupcommunication,free-reinculturewiththeiremployees.Implications for Future Research Theresultsofferseveralimplicationsforacademicians.Thedetailsareasfollows: 1)Thefuturestudywouldbetoexamineotherpotentialindependentanddependentfactorsofleanmanufacturingpractice. 2)Accordingtothefact,therelationshipbetweenavarietyofindependentfactorsandleanmanufacturingpracticeinclinetobemorerobustforstyleoffollowership,lengthofleanimplementation,organizationalculture,andrateofcompetitive.Asaresult,thefuturestudywouldbetotestthemoderateand/ormediateinfluencesofthesefactorsontherelationshipbetweenindependentfactorsandleanmanufacturingpractice. 3)Thefuturestudymightexaminethemagnitudetowhichinterventionscouldcreatealeanmanufacturingpracticeforleadinghigherorganizationalperformance.


Limitations of the Study Therearesomeexpectedpotentiallimitationsinthisstudy.Firstly,theeffectofexternalfactorswhichmayinvolveleadershipstyle,leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalperformance,financialperformance,andsustainableperformancesuchasmacroeconomicsandeconomiccrisis.Secondly,duetothestudyapplyingself-reportandcross-sectionaldata,thesummarizationscouldnotonlymakecausalextrapolationsbutalsoincreasesomeconcernsaboutcommonbias.Thus,astudyinlongtermisrequiredtooffergreaterdefinitivesummarization.Lastly,theresultsdescribesituationsandactivitiesoffirmsoperateinThailand,whichmaynotbecompatiblewithoverseascompanies.

Summary Althoughleanmanufacturingpracticeisoneofthemostnoticeablestrategiesinbusinesscompanies and operators, only 2%of organizations that responded to the survey have fullyaccomplishedtheirgoalsand24%ofthesaidfirmspresentedthattheyhadaccomplishedsignificantresults(Pay,2006).Referringtothescarcityofaccomplishmentthereofatrecenttime,itispossibletobeachallengeforthefuturestudytodiscoverbothantecedentandconsequencefactors,whichwillleadtosuperiorcomprehendingofthenotionsandutilizations.Inaddition,thefuturestudycanfurtherdiscovertherealisticfactorsandputthemintotheframework,whichcouldbemediatorsand/ormoderators,resultinginmorecomprehensionaboutthesophisticatedorganizationalphenomenaassociatedwithissuesandsituationsofleadershipstyle,leanmanufacturingpractice,operationalperformance,financialperformance,andsustainableperformance.Lastly,theresearchandtheotheraugmentativefuturestudiesmaycontinuetoseekhowtocreatefollowershipstylethatenhancesleanmanufacturing,resultinginorganizationaladvantagecompetitiveness.


References

AdamsC.A.,MuirS.,&HoqueZ.,(2014).Measurementofsustainabilityperformanceinthe publicsector.Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5,46-67.Alsmadi,M.,Almani,A.,&Jerisat,R.(2012).Acomparativeanalysisofleanpracticesand performanceintheUKmanufacturingandservicesectorsfirms.Total Quality Management, 23,381-396.Anand,G.,&Kodali,R.(2008).Performancemeasurementsystemforleanmanufacturing:A perspectivefromSMEs. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 2(4), 371-410.Avery,G.C.,&Bergsteiner,H.(2011).Sustainableleadershippracticesforenhancingbusiness resilienceandperformance.Strategy and Leadership. 39(3),5-15.Arawati,A.,Mohd,S.H.(2012).Leanproductionsupplychainmanagementasdrivertowards enhancingproductqualityandbusinessperformance:Casestudyofmanufacturing companiesinMalaysia.International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 29(1), 92-121.Bagozzi,R.P.,&Yi,T.(1988).Ontheevaluationofstructuralequationmodels.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),74-94.Barney,J.B.&Hesterly,W.S.(2010). Strategic management and competitive advantage concepts. UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonPrenticeHall.Bass,B.M.(1988).Evolvingperspectivesoncharismaticleadership,InConger,J.A.,Kanungo, R.N.,&Associates(Eds.),Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational effectiveness, (pp.40-77).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Basu,R.(2009).Implementing six sigma and lean: A practical guide to tools and techniques. Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.Bentler,P.M.(1989).EQS Structural Equations Program Manual.LosAngeles:BMDPStatistical Software.Bentler,P.M.,&Bonett,D.G.(1980).Significancetestsandgoodnessoffitintheanalysisof covariancestructures.Psychlogical Bulletin, 88(3),588-606.Bentler,P.M.,&Chou,C.(1987).Practicalissuesinstructuralmodeling.Sociological Methods Research, 16,78-117.Brown,M.E.,Treviño,L.K.,&Harrison,D.A.(2005).Ethicalleadership:Asociallearningperspective forconstructdevelopmentandtesting.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97,117–134.Brown,S.,Lamming,R.,Bessant,J.,&Jones,P.(2006).Administração da Produção e Operações. RiodeJaneiro:EditoraCampus/Elsevier.Browne,M.W.,&Cudeck,R.(1993).Alternativewaysofassessingmodelfit.InK.A.Bollen &J.S.Long(Eds.),Testing structural equation models(pp.136-162).NewsburyPark, CA:SageBurawat,P.,Knutonbutr,C.,Mechinda,P.(2014).Themediateeffectofemployeeengagement ontherelationshipbetweenperceivedemployerbrandinganddiscretionaryeffort.DLSU Business & Economics Review, 24(1):59-72.


Burns,J.M.(1978).Leadership.NewYork:HarperandRow.Casserley,T.,&Critchley,B.(2010).Sustainable leadership: Perennial.RetrievedMay,21,2016, fromphilosophyhttp://vanel.org.uk/leaders/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Sustainable-Leadership -article-sep10.pdfChabowski,B.R.Mena,J.A.,&Gonzalez-Padron,T.L.(2011).Thestructureofsustainabilityresearch inmarketing1958-2008:Abasisforfutureresearchopportunities.Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, 39,55-70.Chau,P.Y.K.,&Hu,P.J.E.(2001).Informationtechnologyacceptancebyindividualprofessionals: Amodelcomparisonapproach.Decision Sciences 32(4),699-719.Cheerawit,S.,Napompech,K.,&Panjakhajornsak,V.(2014).ModelofLeadershipandtheeffect ofleanmanufacturingpracticesonfirmperformanceinThailand’sautopartsindustry. Research Journal of Business Management, 8(2),104-117.Cruz,B.L.,Pedrozo,E.,&Estivalete,V.F.B.(2006).Towardssustainabledevelopmentstrategies: AcomplexviewfollowingthecontributionofEdgarMorin.Management Decisio, 44(7), 871–891Cua,K.,McKone,K.,Schroeder,R.G.(2001).RelationshipsbetweenimplementationofTQM,JIT, andTPMandmanufacturingperformance.Journal of Operations Management, 19(6), 675-694.Decarlo,T.L.(1997).OnthemeasuringandtheuseofKurtosis.Psychological Methods, 2(3),292-307.EconomistIntelligenceUnit.(2010).Managing for sustainability.RetrievedMay,21,2016, from:http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/eb/Enel_Managing_for_sustainability_WEB.pdfFiksel,J.,Mcdaniel,J.,&Mendenhall,C.(1999).Measuring progress towards sustainability principles, process and best practices.Ohio:BattelleMemorialInstitute.Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodelswithunobservablevariables andmeasurementerror.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),39-50.Forrester,R.(1995).Implicationsofleanmanufacturingforhumanresourcestrategy.Work Study, 44(3),20-24.Found,P.A.,&Harvey,R.(2007).Leadingtheleanenterprise.IET Engineering Management, 17(1),40-43.Fullerton,R.R.,&Wempe,W.F.(2009).Leanmanufacturing,non-financialperformancemeasures,and financialperformance.International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 29(3), 214-240.GlobalReportingInitiative(2014).Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Index.RetrievedMay,21,2016, fromhttp://www.ab-inbev.com/content/dam/universaltemplate/abinbev/pdf/sr/download-center/ AB_InBev_2014_GRI_Index.pdfHair,J.R.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.,&Black,W.C.(1998).Multivariate data analysis(5thed.). NewJersey:PrenticeHallInternational.HallgrenM.,OlhagerJ.(2009).Leanandagilemanufacturingexternalandinternaldriversand performanceoutcomes.International Journal of Operation Production Management, 29(10), 976-999.Hayes,R.,Pisano,G.,Upton,D.,&Wheelwright,S.(2005).Operations, strategy and technology: Pursuing the competitive edge.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley.


Heizer,J.,&Render,B.(2014).Operation Management(11thed.).Harlow,England:Pearson EducationLimited.Herkness,D.F.(2005).Astudyoftransformationalandtransactionalleadershipanditsrelationship tosuccessfulleanmanufacturingdeployments.Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(04).Heymans,B.(2002).Leadingtheleanenterprise.Industrial Management, 44(5),28-33.Hibadullah,S.N.,Fuzi,N.M.,ChiekDesa,A.F,N.,&Zamri,F.I.M.(2013).Leanmanufacturing practicesandenvironmentalperformanceinMalaysianautomotiveindustry.Asian Journal of Financial & Accounting, 5(1),462-471.Hines,P.,Rich,N.,&Esain,A.(1999).Valuestreammapping–adistributionindustryapplication. Benchmarking International Journal, 6(1),60-77.Hu,L.,&Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforfitindexesincovariancestructureanalysis: Conventionalcriteriaversusnewalternatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1),1−55.Jayaram,J.,Vickery,S.,&Droge,C.(2008).Relationshipbuilding,leanstrategyandfirmperformance: Anexploratorystudyintheautomotivesupplierindustry.International Journal of Production Research, 46(20),5633-5649.Jeserich,N.,Mason,T.,&Toft,G.(2005).What Indiana makes, makes Indiana: Analysis of the Indiana manufacturing sector.CentralIndianaCorporatePartnershipandIndiana ManufacturersAssociationandIndianaDepartmentofCommerce.RetrievedMay,21, 2016,fromhttp://research.policyarchive.org/11766.pdfJöreskog,K.&Sörbom,D.(1996).LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide.Chicago:IL;Scientific SoftwareInternational.Kaplan,R.S.,&Norton,D.P.(1992).The balanced scorecard-measured that drive performance. Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Kiatcharoenpol,T.,Laosirihongthong,T.,&Chaiyawong,P.(2014).Astudyofcriticalsuccessfactors andprioritizationbyusinganalysishierarchyprocessinleanmanufacturingimplementation forThaiSMEs5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation (IEMI 2014).Xi’an,China,July21-22,227-230.Beijing:AtlantisPress.KPMG.(2007).Sustainability reporting in Australia.RetrievedMay,21,2016,fromhttp://kpmg.com. au/portals/0/ras_sustainability_reporting_aust200710.pdfLanglois,T.D.(2015). Examining the association between leadership styles and an organization’s lean manufacturing maturity level(Doctoraldissertation).SanDiego,CA:Northcentral University.Lathin,D.,&Mitchell,R.(2001).Learningfrommistakes.Quality progress, 34(6),39-45.Leitner,P.A.(2005).TheleanJourneyattheBoeingcompany.ASQ World Conference on Quality and Improvement Proceedings, 59,263-271.Liker,J.(1998).Becoming Lean.Portland,OR:ProductivityPress.Liker,J.K.,&Meier,D.(2006).The Toyota way fieldbook: A practical guide for implementing Toyota’s 4P’s.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Longenecker,J.G.,Moore,C.W.,Petty,J.W.,Palich,L.E.,&McKinney,J.(2006).Ethicalattitudes insmallbusinessandlargecorporations:Theoryandempiricalfindingsfromatracking studyspanningthreedecades.Journal of Small Business Management, 2,167-183.Mann,R.,Gibbard,G.,&Hartman,J.(1967).Interpersonal styles and group development: An analysis of the member–leader relationship.NewYork:Wiley.


Marynell,T.M.(2013). Leadership for success with lean manufacturing: The relationship between style and successful implementation(PhDDissertation).Minneapolis:CapellaUniversity.Moori,G.R.,Pescarmona,A.,&Kimura,H.(2013).Leanmanufacturingandbusinessperformance inBrazillianfirms.Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 6(1),91-105.Northouse,P.G.(2004).Leadership:Theory and practice(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage Publications,Inc.Olivier,A.(2012).Howethicalisleadership.Leadership, 8,67-84.Ohno,T.(1988).Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production.NewYork:Productivity Press.Oslen,E.O.(2004). Lean manufacturing management: The relationship between practice and firm level financial performance(Doctoraldissertation).Columbus,Ohio:OhioStateUniversity.Pay,R.(2006).Everybody’sjumpingontheleanbandwagon,butmanyarebeingtakenfora rideleanmightnotalwaysproducetheexpectedbenefitsandhere’swhy. Industry Week(11March2006).RetrievedMay,21,2016,from:http://www.industryweek.com/ articles/everybodys_jumping_on_the_lean_bandwagon_but_many_are_being_taken_for_a_ ride_15881.aspxPavnaskar,S.J.,Gersheenson,J.K.,&Jambekar,A.B.(2003).Classificationschemeforlean manufacturingtools.International Journal Production Research, 41(13),3075-3090.Rahman,S.,Laosirihongthong,T.,&Sohal,A.S.(2010).Impactofleanstrategyonoperational performance:astudyofThaimanufacturingcompanies.Journal of Manufactoring Technology, 21(7),839-852.Sakakibara,S.,Flynn,B.B.,Schroeder,R.G.,&Morris,W.T.(1997).Theimpactofjust-in-time manufacturinganditsinfrastructureonmanufacturingperformance.Management Science, 3(9),1246–1257.Schaltegger,S.,&Wagner,M.(2006).Integrativemanagementofsustainabilityperformance, measurementandreporting.International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3(1),1–19Shah,R.,&Ward,P.T.(2003).Leanmanufacturing:context,practicebundles,andPerformance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(2),129-149.Shah,R.,&Ward,P.T.(2007).Defininganddevelopingmeasuresofleanproduction.Journal of Operations Management, 25(4),785-805.Smalley,A.(2005).TPS vs lean and the law of unintended consequences.RetrievedMay,21, 2016,fromwww.superfactory.com/articles/smalley_tps_vs_lean.htmSmalley,A.(2005).Thestartingpointforleanmanufacturing:Achievingbasicstability.Management Services, 49(4),8-11.Soriano-Meier,H.,&Forrester,P.L.(2002).Amodelforevaluatingthedegreeofleannessof manufacturingfirms. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(2),104-109Spear,S.,&Bowen,H.K.(1999).DecodingtheDNAofToyotaproductionsystem.Harvard Business Review, 77(5),97-106Spector,R.,&West,M.(2006).Theartofleanprogrammanagement.Supply Chain Management Review, 10(6).Stogdill,R.M.(1974).Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature.NewYork:FreePress.


Stuart,A.,&Ord,J.K.(1994).Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 1: Distribution Theory. London:EdwardArnold.Takala,T.,&Pallab,P.(2000).Individual,collectiveandsocialresponsibilityofthefirm:Business ethics.A European Review, 9(2),109–118,Tansakul,S.,&Sutthiwatanaruputh,S.(2014).7causesoflowlevelofproductivityinThailabor. RetrievedMay,21,2016,fromhttps://www.scribd.com/document/240531364/7-Causes- Low-ProductivityWhite,R.E.,Pearson,J.N.,Wilson,J.R.(1999).JITmanufacturing:Asurveyofimplementationin smallandlargeUSmanufacturers.Management Science, 45(1),1–15.Weston,R.,&Gore,P.A.(2006).Briefguidetostructuralequationmodeling.The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5),719-751.Womack,J.P.,&Jones,D.T.(1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.Womack,J.P.,Jones,D.T.,Roos,D.(1990).The machine that changed the world.NewYork: HarperPerennial.

the relationships among leadershipstyle, lean ... · lean manufacturing practice, operational...

Documents