ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Perceived organisational support, job involvementand turnover intention in lean production in Sri Lanka

Dharmasri Wickramasinghe &

Vathsala Wickramasinghe

Received: 11 March 2010 /Accepted: 30 November 2010 /Published online: 21 December 2010# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Abstract The literature suggests that the bottom-line changesoften cited in lean implementation success stories, such asreduced inventories and faster flow times, are not the onlyresults that should be considered. The potential detrimentaleffects on employees should be considered as well, orturnover and morale problems may sabotage the effectivenessof such implementations. However, the ways in which leanproduction environment influence employee behaviour hasreceived scant empirical attention. The aim of this paper is toexamine the mediating effect of job involvement on therelationship between perceived organisational support andturnover intention in the lean production in Sri Lanka. Arandom sample of 616 shop-floor employees engaged full-time in export-apparel manufacturing firms that have imple-mented a formal lean production system in the wholemanufacturing function and it has become the standard ofoperation for at least 1 year in Sri Lanka responded.Regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. It wasfound that job involvement partially mediates the relationshipbetween perceived organisational support and turnoverintention. The findings provide useful information to betterunderstand employee perceptions toward lean productionenvironment and the findings will be a source of generalguidance in stimulating future research in this area.

Keywords Job involvement . Lean production . Perceivedorganisational support . Turnover intention

1 Introduction

Lean production is identified as a radical process innovationthat is not restricted to its origin [1] in the auto industry, buthas wide applicability in many different countries andindustries [2]. The literature identifies lean production as abundle of associated practices installed as a system, such astotal quality management, just-in-time, and continuousimprovement [3–7]. Some authors include human resourcemanagement as another associated practice that facilitate orlimit the adoption of lean production [e.g. 6, 8, 9].

The reorganisation of manufacturing processes accordingto lean production requirements trigger techno-organisationalchanges with a new strategy, structure, and the socialorganisation of work system [8, 10]. For instance, leanproduction dependent on several core characteristics such asthe multiskilling of workforce, broadening of job boundaries,consolidation of departments, and commitment to team-based work organisation [11]. Therefore, some scholarsargue that human factor alone can differentiate firms whoare successful in the adoption from those that are not sosuccessful [8]. Although firms can gain benefits such asquality improvements and cost reductions by restructuringwork systems for the lean production, several scholarscriticise the work systems of lean production for beingexploitative and high pressure to shop-floor employees [2,12]. Therefore, when capturing and capitalising on individualcapabilities in the lean production, there is a need to betterunderstand work-related attitudes of employees.

Empirical research on human resource aspects and leanproduction effects in the South Asian operations environ-

D. WickramasingheDepartment of Textile and Clothing Technology,Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa,Katubedda,Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lanka

V. Wickramasinghe (*)Department of Management of Technology,Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa,Katubedda,Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lankae-mail: vathsala@mot.mrt.ac.lk

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830DOI 10.1007/s00170-010-3099-z

ment is sparse and therefore understanding employees’perceptions towards work systems of lean production isimportant for several reasons. First, although scholarsidentify lean production as an important subfield ofoperations management for further inquiry and understand-ing [13] few research studies were devoted to understandthe human dimension in the lean production [e.g. 10, 14–16]. Second, scholars find that the utilisation of advancedmanufacturing technologies is associated with a greaterreliance on non-financial performance measures [e.g. 17, 18].In this regards, organisational behaviour literature identifiesemployee work attitudes as one of such non-financialperformance measures [19]. However, our review of literaturehas shown that employee beliefs and attitudes to variousdimensions of new manufacturing management initiativeshave so far gone largely unrecorded. To date, few case studies[e.g. 16, 20–22], quantitative questionnaire surveys [e.g. 8,14, 15], and a qualitative interview survey [e.g. 23] attemptedto address human dimension in the lean production.Therefore, there is no consensus regarding the extent towhich, and ways in which, the adoption of lean productionhas implications for human resources on the shop-floor [2].

Third, within the organisational behaviour literature,behavioural scientists pointing to the evidence of lack ofcommitment, low job satisfaction, and restriction ofproductivity in traditional plants have argued for increasedopportunities for employees to participate at work [24].Subsequent research within the organisational behaviourliterature provides support that job involvement reducesturnover intention [e.g. 25, 26]. However, employee jobinvolvement is an integral aspect of a successful leanproduction process [14, 15, 18]. For instance, previousresearch [see 27] showed empirically that characteristicssuch as completeness of the work, difficulty of the work,monotony of the work, workplace autonomy, interactionpotential in the work, presence of organising tasks, andinformation provision (on time, complete and reliable) withrespect to the work to be done are important determinantsof quality of working life in the lean production environ-ment. However, the literature concerning the characteristicsof work organisation in lean production and its impact onemployees is not quite clear [see 28]. On one hand, theproponents of lean production suggest that workers in leanproduction settings appear to display intrinsically motivated,internally driven and more productive than in traditionalassembly line settings, which has been linked to improvedmanufacturing outcomes and competitiveness [e.g. 1]. Onthe other hand, the opponents of lean production argue thatit places workers in highly limiting and alienating con-ditions [see 28]. For instance, Vidal [23] suggests that whenparticipatory work arrangements involve substantial newresponsibilities employees may experience those as burdensrather than challenges, and an increased level of employee

job involvement does not necessarily increase their jobsatisfaction. In a similar vein, Brown and Mitchell [29]found that human-related performance obstacles in thework environment that prevent people from performingtheir jobs to the best of their abilities had increased in theimportance after the implementation of just-in-time (JIT).As employees in the JIT system are highly dependent onother group members, they perceived greater obstacles thanthe batch employees in the area of reliance on co-workers[29]. Hence, Brown and Mitchell [29] conclude that thebottom-line changes often cited in JIT success stories, suchas reduced inventories and faster flow times, are not theonly results that should be considered. The potential fordetrimental effects on employees should be considered aswell, or turnover and morale problems may sabotage theeffectiveness of JIT implementation. On the contrary,Schouteten and Benders [27] showed empirically thatalthough many assembly workers had reported rather lowjob satisfaction and commitment, relative to these levelsthey had reported low intention to resign. Therefore, ourreview of literature suggests that the impact of the leanproduction implementation on employees’ behaviour is notquite clear. There is surprisingly little empirical researchaddressing human dimension in the operations managementliterature. Our review of journals that are outlets foroperations management-related research in popular data-bases of Business Source Premier, ABI/Inform, Emerald,ScienceDirect, Springer, and Wiley Blackwell has not beenable to find studies that are conducted on perceivedorganisational support (POS), job involvement, and turnoverintention in the lean production context. Therefore, it isexpected that the findings of this study would be able toprovide useful information to better understand employeeperceptions towards lean production environment. Further, itis expected that the findings of this study will be a source ofgeneral guidance in stimulating future research in this area.

Finally, the literature on operations management themesdescribes application contexts in North America, WesternEurope, as well as countries in the Asia-Pacific region such asAustralia and Japan. However, valuable lessons could belearned from implementation experiences in different parts ofthe world, especially in South Asia. In response to severalfactors, such as increasing global competition, low labourcosts in Sri Lanka and inducements from the Sri Lankangovernment, the number of international businesses cominginto the country has been increasing. In the context ofglobalisation of business operations and interlocking supplychains, a research on lean production systems in South Asia(Sri Lanka in particular) is interesting, relevant and timelysince relatively little is known about human resource aspectsof operations management contexts in this part of the world.

In the above context, the purpose of this paper is toexamine the associations between POS, job involvement,

818 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

and turnover intention in the lean production in Sri Lanka.With regard to the treatment of POS, job involvement andturnover intention in previous studies, these variables havebeen treated as independent, dependent, moderator, andmediator variables depending on the purpose of the study.For instance, POS is treated as an independent variable [e.g.30] and a mediator variable [e.g. 31, 32], job involvement istreated as an independent variable [e.g. 33] and a moderator[e.g. 34], and turnover intention is treated as a mediator[e.g. 35] and a dependent variable [e.g. 33]. The currentstudy treats POS as an independent variable, turnoverintention as a dependent variable, and job involvement as amediator in the lean production in Sri Lanka. In other words,by taking into account how POS affects job involvement andhow job involvement in turn impacts on employees’ turnoverintention, the study tested the role of job involvement as amediator between POS and turnover intention (refer to Fig. 1).For the study, the quantitative research methodology wasused and collected data from 616 shop-floor employees full-time engaged in export-apparel manufacturing firms thathave implemented lean production systems in Sri Lanka. Itis expected that the understanding of sources and con-sequences of job involvement would be of considerableinterest, both theoretically and practically. Consistent withthe objective, the next section briefly describes the SriLankan context and reviews the theoretical background ofthe study. This is followed by the methodology adopted.Thereafter, the main findings are presented and discussed.The article concludes with a discussion on the implicationsof the findings and research areas for further inquiry andunderstanding.

2 Background of the study: Sri Lankan context

The export-apparel manufacturing industry is the leadingmanufacturing industry in Sri Lanka that has emerged asthe country’s main export earner and the largest singleemployment provider in the industrial sector [36]. Whenproducing apparel for the developed countries in the West,local manufactures have to strictly adhere to product designspecifications provided by the foreign buyer, such as Marksand Spencer, who defines product design and quality.

The growth witnessed by this industry can be attributed totwo major factors. First, the market-oriented liberal economicpolicies introduced in 1977 [37]. Second, the Multi-FibreAgreement (MFA), the worldwide system of managed tradein textiles and apparel that came into existence in 1974(which subsequently integrated into the World TradeOrganisation framework by 2005). The MFA introduced aquota system for the export of apparel products to developedcountries by limiting the quantity of garments that can beexported by the developing countries to any single devel-oped country. Therefore, the quota-holding apparel exportingdeveloping countries had been ensured a guaranteed market.

Due to rising wages and quota restrictions byMFA on EastAsian economies (such as Hong Kong, South Korea, andTaiwan, who were the leaders in apparel export by late 1970s),export-apparel production shifted to quota holding Asiancountries, such as Sri Lanka, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia,China, India, and Pakistan in the late 1970s. Thereafter, theexport-apparel production has, further, shifted to quotaholding other countries with relatively lower labour cost inAsia (such as Laos, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Vietnam),Latin and Central America, Caribbean, Eastern Europe, andNorth Africa [37, p 255]. Overall, under the quota regime,Sri Lanka like other apparel exporting developing countrieshad enjoyed relatively assured export market throughbilateral agreements with the developed world.

However, changes occurred when this system of man-aged trade perpetrated by MFA came to an end. The WorldTrade Organisation, which replaced GATT ushers arestriction-free world trade, set out a time period of 10 yearsfrom 1995 to 2005 for the phase-out of MFA quota systemand the integration of textiles and apparel export trade intothe WTO framework. Export-apparel manufacturing indus-try in Sri Lanka faced this imminent phase-out of MFAquota system for the EU by late 1990s and for the USA(and other Western countries) in 2005. In real terms,phasing out of the quota system challenged the veryfoundation on which this industry was built. Since thephase-out of the quota system by 2005, apparel exportingcountries from Asia, Latin and Central America, Caribbean,Eastern Europe, and North Africa have been competingintensively with each other for the market share. Since then,other competitive dimensions such as productivity and

H1 H2

H3

H4

Perceived organisational support

Job involvement

Turnover intention

Fig. 1 Hypothesised researchmodel

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 819

quality, therefore, come on centre stage. This change ofpriorities has influenced to rethink operations managementstrategies adopted in this sector.

Since mid-2000s, export-apparel manufacturers in SriLanka identified possibilities for them to turn to leanproduction for improving the efficiency of productionsystems. Scholars also suggest that rapid change industriesadopt lean production as a growth paradigm [e.g. 38, 39].The attributes of lean production [see 1, 2, 40], such asintegrated, single piece production flow, low inventory, andclose integration from raw material to customer throughpartnership fit in high-volume repetitive export-apparelmanufacturing environment in Sri Lanka. Preliminaryinvestigations made by us revealed that export-apparelmanufacturing firms in Sri Lanka are changing theirproduction methods and management practices to becomeleaner and fitter to suit the new production model (also referto Appendix).

When considering the shop-floor workforce of thisindustry, workforce statistics [36, 41] and past studies [42]report that a majority of shop-floor employees are female,single, less than 25 years of age, and have secondaryeducation less than or equal to 10 years of full-timeeducation. Further, employees belong to any category ofthe workforce of this industry are not unionised. However,it should be noted that the state interventions to protect theinterests of the workers who do not have equal bargainingpower with the employers has resulted in the enactment of alarge number of labour statutes, where some argues that theSri Lankan labour legislation is over protective of employ-ees and weigh heavily in favour of them [43]. The platformindeed for the industry is better educated and trainedemployees; employers expect them to stay longer in ajob. However, the industry suffers with a monthlyaverage turnover rate of 8% for shop-floor employees.Therefore, when capturing and capitalising on individualcapabilities, there is a need to better understand work-related attitudes of employees. Further, being in theexport-apparel manufacturing industry for more than30 years, the findings of this study will provide valuableinformation to both academics and practitioners as it isscarce to find empirical evidence on human dimension inthe lean production.

3 Theoretical background and hypotheses

3.1 Perceived organisational support

Perceived organisational support captures an employee’sbeliefs concerning the extent to which the organisationvalues (employees’) general contributions made on theorganisation’s behalf and cares for their well-being [44]. In

other words, POS focuses on the employer’s side of theexchange as perceived by employees. Therefore, anemployee’s beliefs of how an organisation values him orher is vital for determining whether any attitudes orbehaviours benefiting the organisation emerge from theexchange relationship that takes place between the employ-ee and employer [45].

It has been argued that POS is affected by fair allocationof job rewards for the effort employees put in to meetorganisational goals, which signify a belief that theorganisation values the contributions of its employees[46]. Job rewards include tangible incentives, such as payand fringe benefits and socio-emotional benefits such asesteem, supportive and helpful supervision, approval, andcaring [45]. Further, employees value job rewards to bebased on the discretion of the organisation rather thaninfluenced by external forces, such as unions or health andsafety regulations [47]. These voluntary job rewards thatcome directly from the organisation are perceived as anindication that the organisation values employees’ contri-butions made on the organisation’s behalf and cares fortheir well-being [47].

Organisational behaviour literature provides evidencethat employees with a higher level of POS are likely toreciprocate with positive feelings, job attitudes, andbehavioural intentions towards the organisation [46]. Twoof such job-related outcomes are job involvement andturnover intention [46]. In developing an account of therelationships between POS, job involvement and turnoverintention, in the following paragraphs, our focus is onspecific literature that is relevant and useful for the currentstudy. Further, for this study, four hypotheses weredeveloped as per the three-step procedure recommendedby Baron and Kenny [48], which was used to test themediation hypothesis (refer to Section 4.3).

3.2 Job involvement

The literature identifies job involvement as an individual’slevel of psychological identification with the specific job inwhich he or she is engaged or being absorbed in it [49].Organisational behaviour literature suggests several differentconceptualisations of job involvement [see also 33, 50], suchas the degree of importance of one’s job to one’s self-image[e.g. 51], the degree to which an individual’s self-esteem orself-worth is affected by his or her perceived performancelevel [e.g. 52], and the degree to which an individual isactively participating in his or her job [e.g. 53, 54]. Pastresearchers have adopted appropriate conceptualisations of jobinvolvement depending on the purpose of their studies [e.g.33, 34, 55]. Drawing from the previous research, for theconceptual framework presented in this paper (refer toFig. 1), job involvement is referred to as the extent to which

820 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

an individual is actively participating in his or her job. Salehand Hosek [50] provide an extensive review of literature onthis line of job involvement, where they synthesise:

... [an] interpretation of job involvement was pro-posed by Allport [53] who conceptualised it as thedegree to which an employee is participating in his orher job and meeting such needs as prestige, self-respect, autonomy, and self-regard. A similar inter-pretation was given by Gurin et al. [56] in which theyindicated that personal involvement in the jobdepends on the extent to which an individual seekssome self-expression and actualisation in his or herwork. The same type of job involvement wassuggested by Wickert [57] and Bass [54]. Bass [54],for instance, suggests that the opportunity to make jobdecisions, the feeling that one is making an importantcontribution to company success, the chance to setone’s own work pace, and self determination lead tothe strengthening of job involvement. Wickert [57]suggested that the participation type of involvementcould be measured by asking the employee the degreeto which he or she feels that he or she is activelyparticipating in his or her job [p. 214].

Our main reason for adopting this interpretation of jobinvolvement is that the literature on operations manage-ment, lean production in particular, identifies employeeparticipation as an integral aspect of lean production [14,15, 18], and employee job involvement is higher in leanproduction plants than in traditional plants [e.g. 8]. In thelean production setting, employee job involvement mani-fests itself in many forms, such as active participation inroot cause problem solving, the interruption of productionflow whenever they notice anomalies or defects, theadaptation of work teams to variations in job duties in theproduction flow, the exchange of positions within the workgroup and the habit of “giving each other a hand” inmoments of difficulty, and the commitment of eachemployee to the continuous improvement [see 16, 20, 22,40, 58]. Overall, employee job involvement increasesflexibility and reduces the vulnerability of the leanproduction system [8].

Although a majority of publications on lean produc-tion devotes some space to highlight the importance ofemployee job involvement, those are mainly focused ontechnical aspects [8, 10, 16]. Further, the treatment ofrecent important developments in manufacturing methodsin the organisational behaviour literature remains partialbecause of its failure to engage fully with the operationalarrangements [15, 16]. Therefore, there is a need toinvestigate antecedents to and consequences of jobinvolvement (refer to Fig. 1) in the operations managementliterature.

3.2.1 Perceived organisational support and job involvement

Previous research provides support for a significant directpositive relationship between POS and job involvementsuggesting POS as an antecedent to job involvement [59,60]. In the Sri Lankan context, Wickramasinghe [42]surveyed 284 shop-floor employees from six out of 12export-apparel manufacturing firms that have implementedlean production systems and reported a significant positivecorrelation between POS and job involvement. Therefore, itis important to investigate employees’ perceptions towardsPOS and its possible outcomes, job involvement inparticular. Consistent with the past research, it is hypoth-esised for this study:

Hypothesis 1. POS will be positively related to jobinvolvement

3.3 Turnover intention

Turnover intention refers to whether an employee intends toleave his or her current place of employment [61]. Severalpast research have demonstrated that intention to leave isone of the strongest predictors and an immediate precursorof employee turnover [62, 63].

3.3.1 Job involvement and turnover intention

The findings of past research within the organisationalbehaviour literature suggest that a high level of jobinvolvement is an inherently desirable attribute of employ-ees. The highly job involved individuals seem to besatisfied with their jobs, in characteristic positive moodsat work and record regular attendance and punctuality atwork [25]. These highly job involved employees believethat personal and organisational goals are compatible andrarely think about quitting their jobs and expect to beworking for the same organisation in the foreseeable future[25, 26]. Overall, previous research from non-lean produc-tion settings provides evidence that job involvement isassociated with significant improvements in the quality ofwork life of employees. The past studies in the context oflean production provide evidence that job involvementthrough solving production problems and devising processimprovements can increase job control by providing offlineopportunities to utilise a higher level of skills and toimprove job tasks and product quality [e.g. 8]. However,Vidal [23] suggests that employees in lean production mayfind involvement not only brings substantial new respon-sibilities but also brings pressures and psychologicaltensions, which could be experienced as burdens ratherthan challenges [23]. However, Wickramasinghe [42]provides evidence for the existence of significant negative

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 821

correlation between job involvement and turnover intentionin the lean production in Sri Lanka. Therefore, a detailedexploration of the linkage between these variables in thelean production would be of considerable interest, boththeoretically and practically. Therefore, based on theempirical evidence that indicates job involvement signifi-cantly negatively related to turnover intention, for thisstudy, it is hypothesised:

Hypothesis 2. Job involvement will be negatively relatedto turnover intention

3.3.2 Perceived organisational support and turnoverintention

As POS reinforces employees’ beliefs that the organisationvalues their contributions and cares about their well-beingthey are likely to reciprocate with positive attitudes andbehavioural intentions [46]. Scholars also suggest that POSfulfils employees’ socio-emotional needs (including ap-proval, affiliation, and self-esteem) and develops a sense ofunity with the organisation, involving the incorporation oforganisational membership into their social identity [59].Therefore, employees with a high level of POS tend toexpress stronger feelings of affiliation and loyalty to theirorganisation [32] and reduce their intentions to leave theemploying organisation [64]. Previous research, withinorganisational behaviour literature [e.g. 32, 35, 64] as wellas in the context of lean production in Sri Lanka,Wickramasinghe, [42] provides evidence for a significantnegative relationship between POS and turnover intention.However, there have been limited investigations on therelationship between POS and intention to leave [e.g. 32,61, 64] and more empirical work has been called for [62].Therefore, consistent with past research, it is hypothesisedfor this study:

Hypothesis 3. POS will be negatively related to turnoverintention

As detailed in the section on introduction, previousresearch treated job involvement differently (e.g. indepen-dent variable by Blau and Boal [33], a moderator by Ruh etal. [34]) depending on the context of the study. In thisregards, Cotton et al. [65] state the importance ofconsidering antecedents, consequences, mediating process,and contextual contingencies in analysing employee partic-ipation. In a similar vein, Abelson [66] and Wagner [67]suggest that small episodic effects can sometimes havestrong cumulative consequences that may amass over time.Therefore, there is a need of a closer understanding of thedynamics of job involvement and the impact it has on therelationship between POS and turnover intention. There-fore, building on the previously reviewed literature, our

study developed a model to explore whether job involve-ment mediates the relationship between POS and turnoverintention. In that, we propose employees’ beliefs thatorganisation values their contributions made on the organ-isation’s behalf and cares for their well-being, termed POS,generates significantly positive attitudes towards job in-volvement, which in turn significantly reduces theirturnover intention in the lean production context. Therefore,it is hypothesised:

Hypothesis 4. Job involvement will mediate the relation-ship between POS and turnover intention

Figure 1 shows the proposed model.

4 Methodology

4.1 Sample

The target population for the study is a cross-section ofshop-floor employees employed full-time in export-apparelmanufacturing firms, which have implemented a formallean production system in the whole manufacturingfunction and lean production has become the standard ofoperation for at least 1 year in Sri Lanka. Following sampleselection criteria were set for the study: (1) a firm should beregistered under the Board of Investment of Sri Lanka(BOI) as it is the primary government authority responsiblefor identifying, promoting, and facilitating both foreign andlocal investments in the country and export-apparel manu-facturing is the major industrial category under BOI [68].Further, it is compulsory by law that all BOI-registeredfirms should export at least 90% of the manufactured output[68]. Thus, all export-apparel manufacturing firms thatcome under this study population are homogeneous innature in terms of business operations; and (2) a firmshould have implemented a formal lean production systemin the whole manufacturing function (not as a pilot project)and it should be the standard of operation for at least 1 year.This criterion was set as past researchers [e.g. 69] suggestedthe importance of distinguishing firms that have implementedlean and firms that are planning to implement, etc. Althoughthere are nearly 800 firms engaged in the export-apparelmanufacturing industry, in mid 2008, Wickramasinghe [42]identified 12 BOI registered export-apparel manufacturingfirms that had implemented lean production systems in theirwhole manufacturing function and has become the standardof operation for at least 1 year. These 12 firms wereconsidered as the population frame for this study and allthe firms agreed to participate in the survey. To fulfill theexpectations of this study, it was decided to collect data fromshop-floor employees. Twelve contact persons were identi-fied from each firm. The contact person from each firm

822 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

together with one of the authors of this paper randomlyselected shop-floor employees to be participated in thisstudy. In doing so, attempts were made to select a cross-section of shop-floor employees from each firm. Further,participants were briefed about the aims of the study prior tothe questionnaire distribution and their responses wereanonymous. One thousand survey questionnaires weredistributed among the firms covering at least 5% of the totalshop-floor employees in each firm. Of the total number ofquestionnaires distributed, 625 responses received. 616usable responses resulted in 62% response rate. Thisresponse rate is considered reasonable based on norms setfor behavioural research [e.g. 70], where Baruch [70]provides a norm for response rate in academic studies inbehavioural sciences as 60±20%.

With regard to the characteristics of responding firms, theoldest firm was established in the year 1993 while theyoungest firm was established in the year 2004. All the firmshave adopted lean production methods after 2005, where thelatest adoption occurred in two of the firms in the year 2007.When the firm size is measured in terms of average annualturnover in US$ and the number of people employed, therespondent firms had an average annual turnover (in US$)ranged from 50 to 250 million while the total number ofemployees ranged from 300 to 5,000. All the firms haddedicated section to handle lean implementation headed by asenior level manager. Although we wanted to gathersecondary data on the performance of lean production, onlyfive firms provided some data while others refused toprovide. The data obtained are given in Appendix. Asshown in Appendix, two firms also provided some data forbefore versus after comparison. Although other participatingfirms did not provide these data, it does not mean that theyhave not implemented the “lean production”. The character-istics of the sample are shown in Table 1.

4.2 Measures

Independent, dependent, and mediator variables weremeasured using a five-point Likert response scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In thisregards, Kulas et al. [71] found that middle responsecategory did not adversely affect reliability and validity insocial research. For all measurement scales, standardisedCronbach’s alpha was examined and principal componentsfactor analysis (Varimax rotation) was conducted. Thecriteria adhered to are: eigenvalues of all componentsshould not be less than 1.0; the loadings should be 0.50 orgreater to be considered practically significant; Cronbach’salpha values of each factor extracted and overall measureshould be greater than 0.7 [see 71]. The items of each factorwere averaged to produce a mean score for the eachconstruct (refer to Table 2).

Turnover intention was measured using the three itemscale used by Hui et al. [35]. Example items include “I oftenthink of leaving the organisation” and “it is very possible thatI will look for a new job next year”. Factor analysis yieldedone factor, where standardised Cronbach’s alpha=0.705,eigenvalue=2.432, and explained variation=1.23%.

Job involvement was measured by five items adaptedfrom Vroom [72]. Example items include “I have much sayand influence over what goes on in my job”, and “I havemuch chance to feel at the end of the day that I haveaccomplished something”. Factor analysis yielded onefactor, where standardised Cronbach’s alpha=0.782, eigen-value=3.03, and explained variation=78.25%.

Perceived organisational support was measured using theeight-item short version of the POS scale of Eisenberger etal. [45]. An example item includes “Help is available frommy organisation when I have a problem”. Factor analysisyielded one factor, where standardised Cronbach’s alpha=0.760, eigenvalue=2.895, and explained variation=73.16%.

Although we intend to control characteristics of leanproduction (e.g. the reduction of WIP, space, etc.), asmentioned earlier, the firms were reluctant to provide thesedata. Therefore, the duration of lean production wasselected as a control variable. The literature also suggeststhat the extent to which firms have adopted a leanproduction system may influenced by the duration of leanproduction in operation [e.g. 4, 11, 15]. Therefore, theduration of lean production in operation, termed as “leanduration” in this study (in years), and five individualdemographic characteristics (gender, marital status, educa-

Table 1 Characteristics of the sample (N=616)

Gender

Male 41%

Female 59%

Marital status

Single 64%

Married 36%

Age

Mean 25 years

SD 4.84

Tenure in the present workplace

Mean 4 years

SD 2.46

Highest level of education

Less than or equal GC E (O/L)a 67%

Up to GCE (A/L)b 33%

aGeneral Certificate in Education (ordinary level) with 10 years ofeducationb General Certificate in Education (advanced level) with 13 years ofeducation

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 823

tion, age, and firm tenure) were controlled in the analysis.Of these individual demographic characteristics, gender(male=0, female=1), marital status (single=0, married=1)and the highest level of education (less than or equal toO/L=0, up to A/L=1) were binary coded while age andtenure were coded as continuous variables in years.

The measurement scales were previously used byWickramasinghe [42] in his study (N=284) on Sri Lankanexport-apparel manufacturing firms that have implementedlean production systems in Sri Lanka. Therefore, althoughthe measures of constructs used in this study weredeveloped in Western English-speaking countries, thesewere used in our target industry in a previous study.Further, Wickramasinghe [42] reports that measurementscales obtained standardised Cronbach’s alpha values higherthan 0.7, fulfilling the accepted guidelines proposed by Hair etal. [73]. Since target respondents may not have a goodcommand of English, self-administered survey questionnairewas in native language, Sinhala. We have used Sinhalatranslations of measurement scales from the study ofWickramasinghe [42], for two reasons. First, Wickramasinghe[42] assured the equivalence of the meaning of the measuresthat is used in native language as he adhered to guidelinesstipulated in the literature [see 74]. Second, these item scaleswere previously successfully tested in the same industrialsector by Wickramasinghe [42] and found to be valid andreliable in the Sri Lankan context.

When self-report measures from a single source are usedto evaluate variables, the literature highlights the problemof common method bias [75, 76]. However, Spector [76]suggests that despite the weaknesses of the cross-sectionalself-report methodology, this design can be quite useful inproviding a picture of and inter-correlations among people’sjob environment and their reactions to jobs, which can beuseful for deriving hypotheses about how people react tojobs. Therefore, procedural and statistical measures were

taken to reduce common method bias in the current study.First, the anonymity of the respondents was ensured toreduce evaluation apprehension (a procedure recommendedby Podsakoff et al. [75]). Second, factor analysis was usedto conduct Harman’s single-factor test; neither single factoremerged from this analysis nor was there a general factorthat could account for the majority of variance fulfilling therecommended guidelines of Podsakoff et al. [75].

4.3 Data analysis procedure

Regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. Thethree-step procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny [48]was used to test the mediation hypothesis. According toBaron and Kenny [48], the following conditions must be metto support a mediating relationship. First, the independentvariable must be significantly associated with the dependentvariable. Second, the independent variable must be signifi-cantly associated with the mediator. Finally, after themediator is entered, the relationship between the independentand dependent variables should either disappear (fullmediation) or significantly diminish (partial mediation). Inaddition to the above conditions set out by Baron and Kenny[48], the interactive programme of Preacher and Leonardelli[77] was used to calculate critical ratios. To confirm thenature of the mediation relationship (full or partial), the Excelversion of MedGraph programme of Jose [78] was used.

5 Results

Table 2 shows means, standard deviations and zero-ordercorrelations among the variables. It is apparent from Table 2that job involvement significantly negatively associatedwith turnover intention as predicted in H2 (also refer toTable 3). Further, POS significantly positively associated

Table 2 Correlations

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Gendera 0.59 0.49 1

2 Age 0.49 0.65 0.096b 1

3 Marital statusa 0.65 0.48 0.032 −0.389b 1

4 Educationa 0.49 0.60 −0.015 0.035 0.149b 1

5 Tenure 2.93 0.90 −0.076c 0.394b −0.170b 0.105b 1

6 Lean duration 2.15 0.47 −0.259b −0.006 −0.151b 0.009 0.160b 1

7. POS 3.93 0.56 0.106b 0.046 −0.065 0.022 0.005 0.025 1

8. Job involvement 4.09 0.67 0.143b 0.113b −0.076 0.011 0.070c 0.157b 0.390b 1

9. Turnover intention 2.40 0.65 0.066 −0.029 0.096c −0.010 −0.055 −0.103b −0.367b −0.311b

a Binary-coded variablesb Significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed)c Significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed)

824 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

with job involvement while POS significantly negativelyassociated with turnover intention.

In analysing the mediator effect of job involvement, thehypotheses were tested by estimating a series of multipleregression equations following the procedure presented inSection 4.3. The results are shown in Table 3. As can beseen in Table 3, the conditions for mediation were met.POS significantly positively associated with job involve-ment (β=0.419, p<0.001). This supports H1. POSsignificantly negatively associated with turnover intention(β=−0.433, p<0.001). This supports H3. After job involve-ment is entered, the relationship between POS and turnoverintention significantly diminishes (β=−0.433, p<0.001 toβ=−0.234, p<0.01), suggesting partial mediation. Thecritical ratios obtained from the interactive programme ofPreacher and Leonardelli [77] are also shown in Table 3. Inaddition, standardised coefficients of POS on turnoverintention revealing direct and indirect effects obtained fromthe MedGraph programme of Jose [78] are also shown inTable 3. Accordingly, the mediation hypothesis (H4) that jobinvolvement mediates the relationship between POS andturnover intention is supported by the data.

Overall, the study investigated one of the core character-istics of lean production, i.e. employee job involvement. Indoing so, the study considered POS as an antecedent to jobinvolvement (H1) and turnover intention (H3), and jobinvolvement as an antecedent to turnover intention (H2). Asshown in Table 3, it was found that POS enhance jobinvolvement of the employees in the lean production, and itin turn reduces their turnover intention (H4). In otherwords, job involvement operates as a salient mediator in therelationship between POS and employee turnover intention.

6 Conclusions and implications

This article explored the mediating effect of job involve-ment on the relationship between POS and turnover

intention. As job involvement and turnover intention aretwo aspects desired by employers in the lean productioncontext, the findings presented in this paper would be ofinterest to both academics and practitioners.

We have used widely accepted multiple parametersdrawn from the literature reviewed earlier to evaluatePOS, job involvement, and turnover intention. The itemscales shown to be valid and reliable in the Sri Lankancontext. This supports claims made by Wickramasinghe[42] that above measures seem to be valid and reliable inthe Sri Lankan context.

The belief that the organisation cares about its employ-ees and values their contribution, i.e. POS, was found to bepositively associated with higher levels of job involvement.The significant positive relationship between POS and jobinvolvement in this study lends credence to previousfindings within the organisational behaviour literature [e.g.45, 60]. Several past studies conclude that employee jobinvolvement is a critical element of the lean production [see18]. In the lean production, employees must participate inproblem solving as decision making is decentralised tomanage variance and uncertainty. Further, job involvementthrough participation gives higher ownership of the processto employees. The findings of the study imply that POSplays an important role in making employees moreinvolved in their task accomplishment in the lean produc-tion. This finding has an implication to organisations.Employees in the lean production will increase the level ofjob involvement if they perceive that the organisation caresabout its employees and values their contribution. There-fore, organisations have to visibly support employees. Thiscan be done by fair allocation of job rewards for the effortemployees put in to meet organisational goals. The jobrewards can be given as pay and fringe benefits as well associo-emotional benefits such as esteem, supportive andhelpful supervision and approval.

Further, the findings are also inline with the findings ofprevious studies within the organisational behaviour liter-

Step Variable B SE β R2 (Adj) F

1 Control variablesa

Gender 0.036 0.078 0.012 1.665Age −0.025 0.069

Marital status 0.080 0.075

Education 0.085 0.061

Tenure 0.026 0.044

Lean duration −0.125 0.077

2 POS → Turnover intention −0.486 0.061 −0.433** 0.178 10.835**

3 POS → Job involvement 0.540 0.071 0.419** 0.145 8.696**

4 POS → Turnover intention −0.375 0.064 −0.234* 0.223 12.410**

Job involvement → Turnover intention −0.205 0.047 −0.236**

Table 3 Summarised results:regression analysis testing me-diation on turnover intention

Sobel test t=3.783 (p=0.000),Aroian test t=3.759 (p=0.000),Goodman test t=3.805(p=0.000); direct effectβ=−0.134; indirect effectβ=−0.233a Control variables were retainedin the subsequent steps of 2,3, and 4

*p<0.01, **p<0.001

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 825

ature that POS significantly reduces turnover intention [e.g.64]. The literature considers POS as the quality of exchangethat takes place between an employee and the employer[see 44]. Therefore, the findings suggest that an employeewho sees the employer as supportive is more likely toengage in reduced turnover intention. This also has animplication to organisations, i.e. visible support foremployees not only increases job involvement of employeesin the lean production environment but also reduces theirturnover intention.

Furthermore, we found that job involvement significant-ly negatively related to turnover intention. Our finding ofan inverse relationship between job involvement andturnover intention is consistent with previous researchwithin the organisational behaviour literature [e.g. 25, 26].However, the influence of job involvement on turnoverintention in the context of the implementation of advancedmanufacturing technologies is not quite clear. For instance,Brown and Mitchell [29] support the claim that the workcharacteristics of JIT implementation could have detrimen-tal effects on employees that would influence employeeturnover while Schouteten and Benders [27] reported thatemployees in the lean production environment had lowintention to resign. In the context of high-volume repetitiveexport-apparel manufacturing environment in Sri Lanka,prior to the implementation of lean production, employeesengaged in routinised work and thus experienced lowoccurrence of operational problems to be solved. Hence,work was more monotonous and repetitive unlike after theimplementation of the lean production where tasks consistof a coherent set of executing, preparing, and supportingtasks with varying levels of difficulty. Therefore, thefindings of our study suggest that when employeesinfluence antecedents to work effort, such as goal settingand problem solving, their satisfaction and performancecould enhance, which could reduce their turnover intention.This implies that the level of lean implementation in theorganisation may influence employee job involvement.That is, when lean production systems are fully imple-mented and when it becomes the standard operation in theproduction function, the lean production environmentallows employees to actively be involved in their jobs, forexample, by root cause problem solving, exchange posi-tions within the work group and giving each other a hand inmoments of difficulty. Such job involvement reduces theirturnover intention. However, as discussed in the limitationsof the study, longitudinal studies are need to investigate anychanges in this relationship over time to gain a deeperunderstanding. On the other hand, following the sugges-tions made by Schouteten and Benders [27], it is alsopossible to argue that the meagre labour market prospectsplay a role here. The operator level employees in the Sri

Lankan industry tend to possess low formally recognisedskills that are essential for finding higher qualified jobs [41,also refer to Table 1]. Yet, workforce statistics [36, 41] andpast studies [42] report that the industry suffers with amonthly average turnover rate of 8% for shop-flooremployees. In this context, the work environment of leanproduction may be perceived as an inducement for them tostay in their jobs.

It was found that job involvement mediates therelationship between POS and turnover intention. In otherwords, employees’ global beliefs of being valued andcared for by the organisation enhance their job involve-ment, and job involvement in turn reduces their turnoverintention in the lean production context. Overall, theliterature on lean production mainly emphasise on aspectssuch as material delivery, reduced waste, and responsive-ness of support personnel. However, the ways in whichlean production environment influence employee behav-iour has received scant empirical attention. In thiscontext, based on the organisational behaviour theories,we have developed a model to explain the relationshipsbetween POS, job involvement and turnover intention inthe lean production environment. Therefore, our studycontributes to the operations management literature byviewing job involvement, which is a core characteristic ofthe lean production, as a salient mediator in therelationship between POS and employee turnover inten-tion. Given that organisations desire their employees toexhibit high levels of job involvement and low levels ofturnover intention, the provision of support is one of theviable mechanisms for enhancing job involvement andthereby reducing turnover intention. Therefore, organisa-tions have to convey clear messages to employees that theorganisation cares about its employees and values theircontribution. Employees may consider increased jobinvolvement, backed by being valued and supported bythe organisation, as a positive experience in the organi-sation that reduces their intention to leave. Therefore,organisations aiming to increase employee job involve-ment may be able to tap into the various facets ofemployees’ beliefs about organisational support to assessthe extent of job involvement.

7 Limitations of the study and areas for future research

The limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First,although the literature provides evidence for differentconceptualisations of job involvement, we have investigatedone form of job involvement, i.e. participation. Second,although we intended to include constructs of lean produc-tion as controls in our model, we faced difficulties in

826 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

collecting these data from all the firms that participated in thesurvey. Hence, we had to limit the variables that explainlean production to lean duration. Further, we havecontrolled five individual demographic variables in thisstudy. Future research could investigate the influence ofthese variables on the relationship proposed in this study.Third, the study was confined to the export-apparelindustry in Sri Lanka. However, it should be noted thatlean production practices are not yet well established inother industrial and service sectors compared to export-apparel industry in the country.

With regard to areas for future research, first, it shouldbe noted however, that we have not come across previousempirical studies that investigated the link proposed in thisstudy in the context of lean production or advancedmanufacturing systems to make straight forward compar-isons. Therefore, more empirical work is needed to test ourpropositions and to replicate, extend, or disconfirm theresults presented in this article. Second, future researchcould extend data collection by including managers, teamleaders, human resource managers etc., who are activelyinvolved in the lean production process; complimentquestionnaire surveys with interviews and secondary data.

Third, POS and job involvement may relate to othervariables, such as job satisfaction, organisational citizenshipbehaviour, and organisational commitment. Therefore,future studies could extend the investigation by evaluatingother variables of interest using path analysis techniques.Overall, individual work preferences could be assumed asunstable and context dependent. It is possible that, overtime, employees may re-evaluate work arrangements andadapt to given situations, particularly when they perceivelittle alternative choice. Therefore, more research is neededon employees’ attitudes towards both their jobs and theorganisation itself in the context of advanced manufacturingsystems.

Appendix—Some characteristics of lean productionin the firms

As mentioned in the section on sample and datacollection, five firms provided some of the informationrelating to the performance of lean production in theirfirms. These firms are identified as A, B, C, D, and E.The details are given below.

Table 4 Some details of the firms

A B C D E

Month/year of leanimplementation

July 2007 August 2007 April 2006 April 2006 August 2006

Nature of business Fabrics for apparelproduction

Accessories for apparelproduction

Apparel Apparel Apparel

Markets served EU, USA, South Africa USA, EU USA, EU USA, EU USA, EU

A B C D E

Work in progress (WIP) (days) 37 59 NP NP 35

First time through (FTT) (%) 69 NP NP NP NP

Efficiency of the process (%) 96 NP 50 NP NP

Delivery in full on time (DIFOT) (%) 93 78 100 100 99

Accepted quality level (AQL) (%) NP 81 99 98 99

Floor space saving (m2) NP 8890 NP NP 7700

Cut ship (%) 94 90 98 98 98

Raw material on time delivery (%) 71 81 NP NP NP

Efficiency of machine operators (%) NP NP 64a 58a NP

Table 5 Some details of thecharacteristics of lean produc-tion at the end of 2008

NP not provideda Sri Lankan average for theefficiency of machine operatorsin the export apparel industryis approximately 40%

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 827

Given below is the performance of lean production ofFirm A and Firm E figuratively.

References

1. Womack J, Jones DT, Roos D (1990) The machine that changedthe world. Rawson Associates, New York

2. Hines P, Holweg M, Rich N (2004) Learning to evolve: a review ofcontemporary lean thinking. Int J Oper ProdManage 24(10):994–1011

3. Bonavia T, Marin JA (2006) An empirical study of leanproduction in the ceramic tile industry in Spain. Int J Oper ProdManage 26(5):505–531

4. Browning TR, Heath RD (2009) Reconceptualizing the effects oflean on production costs with evidence from the F-22 program. JOper Manage 27(1):23–44

5. González-Benito J (2005) A study of the effect of manufacturingproactivity on business performance. Int J Oper Prod Manage 25(3):222–241

6. Shah R, Ward PT (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practicebundles, and performance. J Oper Manage 21(2):129–149

7. Zhang Q, Vonderembse MA, Cao M (2006) Achieving flexiblemanufacturing competence: the roles of advanced manufacturingtechnology and operations improvement practices. Int J Oper ProdManage 26(6):580–599

8. Forza C (1996) Work organization in lean production andtraditional plants—what are the differences? Int J Oper ProdManage 16(2):42–62

9. Santos FCA (2000) Integration of human resource managementand competitive priorities of manufacturing strategy. Int J OperProd Manage 20(5):610–628

10. Dahlgaard JJ, Dahlgaard-Park SM (2006) Lean production, sixsigma quality, TQM and company culture. TQM Mag 18(3):263–281

11. Sohal AS, Eggleston A (1994) Lean production: experienceamong Australian organizations. Int J Oper Prod Manage 14(11):35–51

12. Williams K, Harlam C, Williams J, Cutler T, Adcroft A, Johal S(1992) Against lean production. Econ Soc 21(3):321–354

Note: * Firm A started lean implementation in July 2007.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

July August September October November

Perf

orm

ance

Raw materialon time delivery (%)

WIP (days)

Dock to dock(days)

Cut Ship (%)

DIFOT (%)

Fig. 2 Firm A—Lean perfor-mance from July 2007* toNovember 2007

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Prior to lean (by July 2006)

July August September October November

Perf

orm

ance

AQL (%)

Dock to dock (days)

Cut Ship (%)

DIFOT (%)

Fig. 3 Firm E—Lean perfor-mance from July 2007 toNovember 2007 and prior tolean implementation

828 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830

13. Pilkington A, Fitzgerald R (2006) Operations managementthemes, concepts and relationships: a forward retrospective ofIJOPM. Int J Oper Prod Manage 26(11):1255–1275

14. Co HC, Patuwo BE, Hu MY (1998) The human factor inadvanced manufacturing technology adoption—an empiricalanalysis. Int J Oper Prod Manage 18(1):187–106

15. Conti R, Angelis J, Cooper C, Faragher B, Gill C (2006) Theeffects of lean production on worker job stress. Int J Oper ProdManage 26(9):1013–1038

16. Harrison A, Storey J (1996) New wave manufacturing strategies—operational, organizational and human dimensions. Int J Oper ProdManage 16(2):63–76

17. Abdel-Maksoud A, Dugdale D, Luther R (2005) Non-financialperformance measurement in manufacturing companies. BrAccount Rev 37(3):261–297

18. Fullerton RR, Wempe WF (2009) Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures, and financial performance. Int JOper Prod Manage 29(3):214–240

19. Foong K, Yorston R (2003) Human capital measurement andreporting: a british perspective, a study conducted by LondonBusiness School for “Accounting for People”. Available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file38840.pdf. Accessed on 23 April 2008.

20. Karlsson C, Åhlström P (1995) Change processes towards leanproduction: the role of the remuneration system. Int J Oper ProdManage 15(11):80–99

21. Niepce W, Molleman E (1996) A case study—characteristics ofwork organization in lean production and sociotechnical systems.Int J Oper Prod Manage 16(2):77–90

22. Scherrer-Rathje M, Boyle TA, Deflorin P (2009) Lean, take two!Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation. BusHoriz 52(1):79–88

23. Vidal M (2007) Lean production, worker empowerment, and jobsatisfaction: a qualitative analysis and critique. Crit Sociol 33:247–278

24. Lowin A (1968) Participative decision making: a model, literaturecritique and prescriptions for research. Organ Behav Hum Perform3:68–106

25. Brown SP (1996) A meta-analysis and review of organizationalresearch on job involvement. Psychol Bull 120:235–255

26. Martin TN, Hafer JC (1995) The multiplicative interaction effects ofjob involvement and organizational commitment on the turnoverintentions of full- and part-time employees. J Vocat Behav 46:310–331

27. Schouteten R, Benders J (2004) Lean production assessed byKarasek’s job demand–job control model. Econ Ind Democr 25(3):347–373

28. de Treville S, Antonakis J (2006) Could lean production jobdesign be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configurational,and levels-of-analysis issues. J Oper Manage 24(2):99–123

29. Brown KA, Mitchell TR (1991) A comparison of JIT and batchmanufacturing: the role of performance obstacles. Acad Manage J34(4):906–917

30. Chen Z, Eisenberger R, Johnson KM, Sucharski IL, Aselage J(2009) Perceived organizational support and extra-role perfor-mance: which leads to which? J Soc Psychol 149(1):119–124

31. Leveson L, Joiner TA, Bakalis S (2009) Managing culturaldiversity and perceived organizational support—evidence fromAustralia. Int J Manpow 30(4):377–392

32. Loi R, Hang-yue N, Foley S (2006) Linking employees’ justiceperceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave:the mediating role of perceived organizational support. J OccupOrgan Psychol 79:101–120

33. Blau GJ, Boal KB (1987) Conceptualizing how job involvementand organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism.Acad Manage Rev 12(2):288–300

34. Ruh RA, White JK, Wood RR (1975) Job involvement, values,personal background, participation in decision making, and jobattitudes. Acad Manage J 18(2):300–312

35. Hui C, Wong A, Tjosvold D (2007) Turnover intention andperformance in China: the role of positive affectivity, Chinesevalues, perceived organizational support and constructive contro-versy. J Occup Organ Psychol 80:735–751

36. Department of Census and Statistics of Sri Lanka (n.d.) Census ofIndustry—2003/2004. Available at www.statistics.gov.lk/industry/index.htm. Accessed on 30 April 2009.

37. Fonseka AT, Fonseka D (1998) Garment industry of Sri Lanka:challenges and responses. Sri Lanka J Manage 3(3&4):249–291

38. Duguay CR, Landry S, Pasin F (1997) From mass production toflexible/agile production. Int J Oper Prod Manage 17(12):1183–1195

39. Kojima S, Kaplinsky R (2004) The use of lean production indexin explaining the transition to global competitiveness: the autocomponents sector in South Africa. Technovation 24(3):199–206

40. James-Moore SM, Gibbons A (1997) Is lean manufactureuniversally relevant? An investigative methodology. Int J OperProd Manage 17(9):899–911

41. Tertiary and Vocational Education Commission (2000) LabourMarket Information Bulletin, 2 Tertiary and Vocational EducationCommission, Sri Lanka

42. Wickramasinghe GLD (2008) Participation in decision making andwork outcomes: empirical study of Sri Lankan textile and apparelmanufacturing firms. Unpublished MBA dissertation, PostgraduateInstitute of Management, University of Sri Jayewardenepura,Colombo

43. Sarveswaran, A (n.d.) A critique of the industrial Law of SriLanka in the Context of Foreign Investment. Available from:http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCOMPLEGALDB/Resources/article9.pdf. Accessed on 25 Nov 2009.

44. Eisenberger R, Stinglhamber F, Vandenberghe C, Sucharski I,Rhoades L (2002) Perceived supervisor support: contributions toperceived organizational support and employee retention. J ApplPsychol 87(3):565–573

45. Eisenberger R, Cummings J, Armeli S, Lynch P (1997) Perceivedorganizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfac-tion. J Appl Psychol 82:812–820

46. Rhoades L, Eisenberger R (2002) Perceived organizationalsupport: a review of the literature. J Appl Psychol 87(4):698–714

47. Dawley DD, Andrews MC, Bucklew NC (2008) Mentoring,supervisor support, and perceived organizational support: whatmatters most? Leadersh Organ Dev J 29(3):235–247

48. Baron R, Kenny D (1986) The moderator–mediator variabledistinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic,and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173–1182

49. Kanungo R (1982) Measurement of job and work involvement. JAppl Psychol 67:341–349

50. Saleh ISD, Hosek J (1976) Job involvement: concepts andmeasurements. Acad Manage J 19(2):213–224

51. Lodahl TM, Kejner M (1965) The definition and measurement ofjob involvement. J Appl Psychol 49:24–33

52. French JRP, Kahn R (1962) A programmatic approach to studyingthe industrial environment and mental health. J Soc Issues 18:1–47

53. Allport GW (1943) The ego in contemporary psychology. PsycholRev 50:451–476

54. Bass BM (1965) Organizational psychology. Allyn and Bacon,Boston

55. Reid MF, Riemenschneider CK, Allen MW, Armstrong DJ (2008)Information technology employees in state government: a study ofaffective organizational commitment, job involvement, and jobsatisfaction. Am Rev Public Adm 38:41

56. Gurin G, Veroff J, Feld S (1960) Americans view their mentalhealth. Basic Books, New York

57. Wickert FR (1951) Turnover and employees’ feelings of egoinvolvement in the day-today operations of a company. PersPsychol 4:185–197

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830 829

58. McLachlin R (1997) Management initiatives and JIT manufactur-ing. J Oper Manage 15(4):271–292

59. Eisenberger R, Fasolo P, Davis-LaMastro V (1990) Perceivedorganizational support and employee diligence, commitment, andinnovation. J Appl Psychol 75(1):51–59

60. Shore LM, Wayne SJ (1993) Commitment and employeebehaviour: comparison of affective commitment and continuancecommitment with perceived organizational support. J ApplPsychol 78(5):774–780

61. Allen DG, Weeks KP, Moffitt KR (2005) Turnover intentions andvoluntary turnover: the moderating roles of self-monitoring, locusof control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. J Appl Psychol90:980–990

62. Griffeth RW, Hom PW, Gaertner S (2000) A meta-analysis ofantecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moder-ator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. JManage 26:463–488

63. Udo GJ, Guimãrães T, Igbaria M (1997) An investigation of theantecedents of turnover intention for manufacturing plant manag-ers. Int J Oper Prod Manage 17(9):912–930

64. Wayne SJ, Shore LM, Liden RC (1997) Perceived organizationalsupport and leader–member exchange: a social exchange perspective.Acad Manage J 40:82–111

65. Cotton JL, Vollrath DA, Froggat KL, Lengnick-Hall ML, JenningsKR (1988) Employee participation: diverse forms and differentoutcomes. Acad Manage Rev 13(1):8–22

66. Abelson RP (1985) A variance explained paradox: when a little isa lot. Psychol Bull 97:129–133

67. Wagner JAIII (1994) Participation’s effects on performance andsatisfaction: a reconsideration of research evidence. Acad ManageRev 19:312–330

68. Board of Investment of Sri Lanka (n.d.) Make it in Sri Lanka:business and investment environment. BOI, Colombo

69. Pirraglia A, Saloni D, Van Dyk H (2009) Status of leanmanufacturing implementation on secondary wood industriesincluding residential, cabinet, millwork, and panel markets. BioresJ 4(4):1341–1358

70. Baruch Y (1999) Response rate in academic studies—a compar-ative analysis. Hum Relat 4(7):421–38

71. Kulas JT, Stachowski AA, Haynes BA (2008) Middle responsefunctioning in Likert responses to personality items. J BusPsychol 22:251–259

72. Vroom V (1960) Some personality determinants of the effects ofparticipation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

73. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006)Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Education, India

74. Lynn P (2003) Developing quality standards for cross-nationalsurvey research—five approaches. Int J Soc Res Methodol 6(4):323–336

75. Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff N (2003) Commonmethod biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literatureand recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

76. Spector PE (1994) Using self-report questionnaires in OBresearch: a comment on the use of a controversial method. JOrgan Behav 15:385–39

77. Preacher KJ, Leonardelli GJ (2001) Calculation for the Sobel test:an interactive calculation tool for mediation tests. Available from:http://www.people.ku.edu/∼preacher/. Accessed on 18 Sept 2009.

78. Jose PE (2004) MedGraph: a programme to graphically depictmediation among three variables. Available at: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose/files/helpcentre/help1_intro.php. Accessed on 18 Sept 2009.

830 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2011) 55:817–830