LAUSR

Balzer, Brodke, Kluse, and Zickar (2019) present an important review and invitation to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to practically and empirically consider Lean management. As with any novel foray into management research or practice, our engagement should also explicitly consider ethical and moral issues. As Lefkowitz (2008) writes, we should not only be asking about the validity and cost effectiveness of interventions but also about whether they are the “right thing to do” (p. 446). In the case of Lean management, we should be considering the morality and impact of such interventions before perfecting their properties and implementation. Thus, although we agree with Balzer and colleagues that Lean is in need of I-O psychologist involvement, we see this need as stemming from a separate issue: an ethical prerogative. I-O psychologists often avoid discussions of ethics and morals, and rest on claims of scientific objectivity, or the complexities and gray areas of the “real world,” to defend our silence. Indeed, we more readily criticize our peers’ statistical assumptions than we do their ethical and moral assumptions. Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in our willing acceptance of employee control buzzwords. We assume “empowerment” and “participative management” interventions are what they profess to be and have commensurate well-being advantages for employees. Logically, we know this may not be the case; under pressure to publish or consult, however, our assumptions may go untested. The newfound consideration of Lean through an I-O psychology lens is an ideal place to deviate from our well-worn habits. We must recognize the humanist values that underlie our work as I-O psychologists and apply them critically and constructively to science and practice within and outside of our traditional domain. We have a responsibility as I-O psychologists not only to help support research and theory on Lean practices, as Balzer et al. (2019) suggest, but also to help make sure that its implementation is fair, ethical, and supportive of employee well-being. The occupational health effects of Lean management warrant particular attention in light of the contradictory well-being evidence in the literature. Balzer and colleagues review a number of articles that either support or call into question the well-being impacts of Lean. It is thus apparent that the “respect for people” pillar of Lean may not be as central to Lean in practice as it is in concept. The authors then provide questions for I-O researchers to address, chiefly concerning Lean participation (how much), program components (what), and timing (at what point). We argue that three more fundamental questions are at stake here:Why, where, and for whom are Lean implementation and management relevant, appropriate, and ethically sound (and why, where, and for whom are they irrelevant, inappropriate, or unethical)? These questions are inextricably linked to one another, as well as to questions of professional ethics, personal morals, and ideology. In considering the first question (i.e., the “why” of Lean), the motivations behind Lean implementation are important to appraise. Organizational interventions are inherently political processes, infused with power dynamics and hierarchies. Decision making is often concentrated in the hands of a few select managers and leaders. The origin and development of interventions are