Organizations are always under pressure to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs, which has led to many organizations implementing practices adopted from the Toyota Production System (TPS), otherwise known as Lean manufacturing. While lean principles originated in the manufacturing industry, they are equally applicable in the service industry as well [57] . Despite the popularity of lean systems implementation in various organizations, anecdotal evidence has indicated that only 2% of organizations actually succeed in implementing true Lean. The reason for such a high failure rate is due to the primary focus on the hard side of Lean (tools) and ignoring the soft side (culture) [12] . Lean management is a practice that
Organizations are always under pressure to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs, which has led to many organizations implementing practices adopted from the Toyota Production System (TPS), otherwise known as Lean manufacturing. While lean principles originated in the manufacturing industry, they are equally applicable in the service industry as well [57] . Despite the popularity of lean systems implementation in various organizations, anecdotal evidence has indicated that only 2% of organizations actually succeed in implementing true Lean. The reason for such a high failure rate is due to the primary focus on the hard side of Lean (tools) and ignoring the soft side (culture) [12] . Lean management is a practice that * Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000.
E-mail address: aenaja2@uky.edu (Amir Najarzadeh). is based on continuous improvement and aims to increase value by reducing waste, variation, and poor working conditions. Lean is, however, not merely a set of tools and concepts which can be implemented by command and control; it is a fully integrated management philosophy where the behavioral aspects and organizational culture are the most crucial element for success [53] .
Insights about the importance of behavioral aspects to successfully implementing lean practices can be obtained by examining the Toyota Way philosophy used to guide behavior at Toyota. This philosophy, as shown in Figure 1 , has two sides: continuous improvement and respect for people [54] . "Continuous improvement" involves setting 'Challenges', involvement in 'Kaizen', and practicing 'Genchi Genbutsu'. Challenges raise the standards and targets, compelling efforts to reach them. Genchi Genbutsu is utilized to 'go and see' the problem affected areas, make observations about the problem, and solve the problem by eradicating the root cause. To address a problem through a Kaizen event, an 8-step problem solving process is
Organizations are always under pressure to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs, which has led to many organizations implementing practices adopted from the Toyota Production System (TPS), otherwise known as Lean manufacturing. While lean principles originated in the manufacturing industry, they are equally applicable in the service industry as well [57] . Despite the popularity of lean systems implementation in various organizations, anecdotal evidence has indicated that only 2% of organizations actually succeed in implementing true Lean. The reason for such a high failure rate is due to the primary focus on the hard side of Lean (tools) and ignoring the soft side (culture) [12] . Lean management is a practice that * Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000.
E-mail address: aenaja2@uky.edu (Amir Najarzadeh). is based on continuous improvement and aims to increase value by reducing waste, variation, and poor working conditions. Lean is, however, not merely a set of tools and concepts which can be implemented by command and control; it is a fully integrated management philosophy where the behavioral aspects and organizational culture are the most crucial element for success [53] .
Insights about the importance of behavioral aspects to successfully implementing lean practices can be obtained by examining the Toyota Way philosophy used to guide behavior at Toyota. This philosophy, as shown in Figure 1 , has two sides: continuous improvement and respect for people [54] . "Continuous improvement" involves setting 'Challenges', involvement in 'Kaizen', and practicing 'Genchi Genbutsu'. Challenges raise the standards and targets, compelling efforts to reach them. Genchi Genbutsu is utilized to 'go and see' the problem affected areas, make observations about the problem, and solve the problem by eradicating the root cause. To address a problem through a Kaizen event, an 8-step problem solving process is
Organizations are always under pressure to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs, which has led to many organizations implementing practices adopted from the Toyota Production System (TPS), otherwise known as Lean manufacturing. While lean principles originated in the manufacturing industry, they are equally applicable in the service industry as well [57] . Despite the popularity of lean systems implementation in various organizations, anecdotal evidence has indicated that only 2% of organizations actually succeed in implementing true Lean. The reason for such a high failure rate is due to the primary focus on the hard side of Lean (tools) and ignoring the soft side (culture) [12] . Lean management is a practice that * Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000.
E-mail address: aenaja2@uky.edu (Amir Najarzadeh). is based on continuous improvement and aims to increase value by reducing waste, variation, and poor working conditions. Lean is, however, not merely a set of tools and concepts which can be implemented by command and control; it is a fully integrated management philosophy where the behavioral aspects and organizational culture are the most crucial element for success [53] .
Insights about the importance of behavioral aspects to successfully implementing lean practices can be obtained by examining the Toyota Way philosophy used to guide behavior at Toyota. This philosophy, as shown in Figure 1 , has two sides: continuous improvement and respect for people [54] . "Continuous improvement" involves setting 'Challenges', involvement in 'Kaizen', and practicing 'Genchi Genbutsu'. Challenges raise the standards and targets, compelling efforts to reach them. Genchi Genbutsu is utilized to 'go and see' the problem affected areas, make observations about the problem, and solve the problem by eradicating the root cause. To address a problem through a Kaizen event, an 8-step problem solving process is
Organizations are always under pressure to improve productivity and quality while reducing costs, which has led to many organizations implementing practices adopted from the Toyota Production System (TPS), otherwise known as Lean manufacturing. While lean principles originated in the manufacturing industry, they are equally applicable in the service industry as well [57] . Despite the popularity of lean systems implementation in various organizations, anecdotal evidence has indicated that only 2% of organizations actually succeed in implementing true Lean. The reason for such a high failure rate is due to the primary focus on the hard side of Lean (tools) and ignoring the soft side (culture) [12] . Lean management is a practice that * Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000.
E-mail address: aenaja2@uky.edu (Amir Najarzadeh). is based on continuous improvement and aims to increase value by reducing waste, variation, and poor working conditions. Lean is, however, not merely a set of tools and concepts which can be implemented by command and control; it is a fully integrated management philosophy where the behavioral aspects and organizational culture are the most crucial element for success [53] .
Insights about the importance of behavioral aspects to successfully implementing lean practices can be obtained by examining the Toyota Way philosophy used to guide behavior at Toyota. This philosophy, as shown in Figure 1 , has two sides: continuous improvement and respect for people [54] . "Continuous improvement" involves setting 'Challenges', involvement in 'Kaizen', and practicing 'Genchi Genbutsu'. Challenges raise the standards and targets, compelling efforts to reach them. Genchi Genbutsu is utilized to 'go and see' the problem affected areas, make observations about the problem, and solve the problem by eradicating the root cause. To address a problem through a Kaizen event, an 8-step problem solving process is followed in the TPS. The steps support the goals of eliminating the problem root cause and avoiding reoccurrence. Coetzee et al. 2018 [8] argue that if problems are pointed out (as lean tools are designed to do) without anyone to solve them, it only causes frustration and negativity towards Lean. They describe that, parallel to the implementation of technical tools, there should be a cultural ground that delivers employees who are team-minded, competent, motivated, willing and able to identify and solve problems [8] . This approach shows respect for the team members (TMs) by seeking their input and giving them a sense of ownership to the improvement. Communication and mutual trust between the TMs and management are also essential ingredients. These practices of engaging in teamwork and showing mutual respect for everyone is represented by the 'Respect for People' emphasis.
For an organization to be successful in its Lean implementation, it is imperative that the two aspects, presented in Figure 1 and often referred to as the hard side and soft side, respectively, be embraced simultaneously [11] . The hard side refers to the operational tools and techniques that are utilized in improving the work environment, while the soft side is the underlying fabric and culture that allows those practices to be sustained for the organization to succeed. Thus, success in Lean transformation can come only by applying both of these aspects together. Lean implementation is a journey that helps an organization continuously improve from its current state to a better future state. Continuous improvement is achieved through kaizen events that require the application of structured problem solving practices. Thus, one can consider the capability of an organization's teams to routinely practice structured problem solving as a core requirement for successful lean implementation. Johnson 1998 [26] points out that most problems in companies are unresolved due to issues with the organizational culture. As he describes it: the culture of reliance on the problem solver. In such companies there is a tacit distinction between problem solvers (engineers) and workers. As such, workers never get involved to solve any problems surface on a continuing basis, hindering the continuous improvement practice fundamental to sustaining a lean transformation. Dawson 2010 [21] also emphasizes that the successful application of problem solving for continuous improvement depends on the organizations culture. However, none of the studies elaborate on the specific behaviors or cul-tural traits that are necessary to promote problem solving for lean transformation.
Organizational culture guides the actions and behaviors of organizations' members in a subtle manner and the significance of an effective organizational culture as a source of sustainable competitive advantage is well established [31] . For example, the extent to which open communication is promoted, if TM input is valued and whether training and guidance are provided are likely to influence how willing and able TMs will be to engage in structured problem solving. These aspects are a reflection of an organization's culture.
The importance of a culture conducive for successful continuous improvement projects and lean transformations has been emphasized in the literature [5, 12, 32, 6] . For example, Badurdeen et al. 2011 [11] presented a study to examine relationships between an organization's culture and its ability to implement lean practices. Through a survey conducted with industry partners, an attempt is made to identify if any explicit values are prominent with organizations that are more successful with lean implementation. However, they were unable to observe any common values though a company considered a leader in lean implementation, too, was studied. In other studies such as Osono et al. 2008 [42] as well as earlier work by, for example, Adler and Borys 1996 [1] [42] point to the seemingly contradictory practice of having an extremely strict hierarchy at Toyota but the company building an environment where employees are given the freedom and flexibility to provide constructive criticism and feedback to management. These studies further indicate that, while there appears to be a culture that helps sustain and succeed with lean transformations, identifying the specific features of that desired culture is not straightforward.
Pakdil and Leonard 2015 [43] also point to a gap in extant literature and address the cultural aspects of lean processes. They examine the culture in lean environments from different perspectives ranging from group, developmental, hierarchical and rational culture to elaborate on the overlaps that exist between lean processes and these different types of culture. Through this examination, the authors propose a balanced culture where all four types of cultures introduced above are valued, within their appropriate arenas. The authors attribute Toyota's success to possessing and promoting a balanced culture. They suggest that practitioners and managers acknowledge the existing organizational cultural and then make changes, based on the lean process they have prioritized.
In this article, the focus is on structured problem solving and cultural traits related to it. Cultural traits necessary for structured problem solving is not confined in one group of culture, and a balanced culture approach is necessary. While there is consensus on the importance of and the need to develop an organizational culture conducive for successful lean transformations, implementing the changes required to build that culture is not easy. This is because organizational culture is a very broad and elusive concept [16, 20] . The implicit aspects of a culture are difficult to discern and could be even unclear to those with-2 in that culture [33] . Some of the more explicit aspects of a culture such as behavior and organizational traits, however, can be identified more easily. Thus, for organizations poised to sustain lean transformations, one first step could be identifying potential relationships between specific organizational (culture) traits and steps used for structured problem solving. If this can be done, and traits that positively influence structured problem solving capabilities are identified, organizations can design specific training programs/interventions to enhance those desirable traits. Improving those desirable behaviors and traits can help strengthen the 'soft side' necessary for organizations to be more successful in their lean transformation through more effective structured problem solving.
The objective of the research presented in this paper is to empirically determine if there is a relationship between various organizational culture traits and different steps used for structured problem solving. The study specifically aims to: (a) Identify various organizational culture traits that support developing problem solving capabilities, and (b) Establish whether statistically significant correlations exist between different cultural traits and problem solving steps.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an introduction to the importance of Lean and its acceptance in industry. As the practice of problem solving is central to successful lean transformations, a discussion about problem solving practices utilized in a variety of organizations and generic problem solving steps that can be established based on these organizations' methods is presented in Section 3. Section 4 includes a discussion of organizational culture, its various definitions and its importance for successful Lean transformations; some essential cultural traits that we consider must be present to support problem solving for Lean transformations are also identified. The research methodology followed to assess the existence, or not, of potential relationships between cultural traits and problem solving steps is discussed in Section 5. A detailed investigation of the results is presented in Section 6 with concluding remarks and future work provided in Section 7.
Lean is a concept that has evolved through various innovations in the TPS in Japan since the 1940s [25] . The literature on TPS dates back to 1977 when Sugimori et al. 1997 [51] wrote the very first paper in English discussing Just-In-Time (JIT) production and respect for employees. Ohno 1988 [41] discussed TPS in terms of continuous flow for automation and JIT (kanban systems). The now popular term "Lean production" was first coined by Krafick 1988 [28] , which Womack and colleagues popularized as "Lean manufacturing" in their book published in 1990 [58] . Lean implementation is sought after for its direct relation to business performance. The elimination of non-value adding activities allows for more productivity in the same available time, and, as a result, improves profits.
Although the Lean toolkit consists of various tools, it is mainly a way of thinking driven by dynamic knowledge and a customer-driven processes for continuously eliminating waste through employee involvement [39] . It is vital for organizations to understand the underlying culture before rushing to a Lean transformation [24] . Thanopoulos and Leonard 1996 [52] also affirm that cultural factors are the primary constraints in adopting Japanese technology (Lean) management style which is also supported by Dahkagaard et al. 2011 [19] . Badurdeen et al. 2009[13] quoted Schein 1992 [48] in describing a culture's strength and degree of integration as a function of the kind of growth process it had, its length of existence, and the nature of its acceptance or avoidance. Many studies suggest that most companies fail to implement and sustain Lean because they lack the culture necessary for a successful transformation [5, 12] Thus, the primary challenge for companies is sustaining the Lean transformation over time. For this, a culture of problem solving is extremely important. Dawson 2010 [21] conducted some preliminary exploratory research to examine what relationships might exist between organizational cultural traits and problem solving techniques used for Lean transformation. An Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) [47] based approach was utilized for analyzing the survey data gathered from different groups in a single company. Findings showed that few designations in the organization studied were successful in inculcating some cultural traits useful for problem solving; he also found the adoption of specific problem solving steps within the designations. However, individual survey results were not comparatively evaluated to understand any potential relationships. The Dawson 2010 [21] study provides some useful insights that were incorporated when developing the research presented in this paper. Another study by Worley and Doolen 2015 [59] found that Lean implementation positively affects employee problem solving skills; they, however, did not investigate the role of culture on problem solving. Kettinger and Grover 1995 [27] and Bhasin 2011 [15] together indicate that cultural issues must be addressed first before even thinking about Lean transformations. Thus, the cultivation of problem solving skills and having a suitable organizational culture are both of importance for successful Lean transformations. While different studies have independently pointed to the importance of building the culture and problem solving skills, the existing literature does not include research on whether building a particular culture or cultural traits could support or prevent the development of problem solving skills. To address this gap, this study will identify various organizational cultural traits that could support the development of problem solving capabilities and identify if any statistically significant correlations exist between different cultural traits and problem solving steps.
A review of structured problem solving techniques used by Toyota and other select companies is presented below. Based on the evaluation, a generalized set of problem solving steps are identified for use in the analysis. 3
In a general context, a problem can be defined as the gap between the current state of processes or methods being followed and their desired future standard state [30] . One of the most critical factors for improving performance is realizing and acknowledging that a problem exists. When problem existence is recognized, there is an opportunity to solve it by following proper steps for implementing corrective action to prevent reoccurrence.
Various definitions of problem solving have been presented in the literature. For example,Kralik and Rudnick 1985 [29] defined problem solving as the means by which an individual use previously gained knowledge and skills to apply wisdom in satisfying an unfamiliar situation. Mourtos et al. 2004 [38] defined problem solving as a process used to obtain the best answer to an unknown or a decision subject to constraints. Problem solving, as presented by Van Til et al. 2009 [55] , is a determined action directed at achieving a set target by introducing several possible solutions. True Lean is a journey from the current to future state by standardizing processes and implementing small and continuous improvements. Success with implementing lean practices is based on the capabilities of employees; it depends on training and development that enhances their problem solving abilities [46] . Merely providing employees with the knowledge and skills to implement Lean principles to solve problems does not help or allow them to add value to the organization; problem solving must be explicitly taught [55] . Thus, successful Lean deployment is directly related to adopting structured problem solving methods in an organization.
Given the companys success, the problem solving approach used in the TPS could be considered one of the most comprehensive approaches. The 8-step approach followed by Toyota in the TPS for structured problem solving [22] is outlined in Figure 2 .
A detailed description of each step is as follows:
Step 1: Clarifying the problem: This step involves defining: the ultimate goal of the work, the ideal situation to achieve the stated goal, and visualization of the gap. This step helps present the problem in the context of the organization's overall goal.
Step 2: Problem breakdown: Once the problem is identified, then it is broken down into sub-problems and the most critical one prioritized to move to step 3. To break down a vague problem, it is necessary to observe the process affected by the problem. Asking "why" at this point is premature as it leads to looking for a root cause, before a prioritized problem has been identified.
Step 3: Target setting: Two crucial factors in this step are making a commitment to solve the problem and setting a measurable, concrete and challenging target for the prioritized problem. Step 4: Root cause analysis: This has three sub-steps which are: brainstorming to identify possible causes, obtaining facts through Genchi Genbutsu (go and see the affected process) by continually asking "why", to identify the root cause.
Step 5: Develop countermeasures: Here TMs engage in brainstorming to identify potential countermeasures. Depending on the overall effectiveness, feasibility, and judgment, one countermeasure is selected for implementation.
Step 6: Implement countermeasure: The selected countermeasure is implemented quickly and effectively by preparing an action plan with responsible individuals and targets dates.
Step 7: Track results and processes: Monitoring the implemented countermeasure for progress and results is an essential part of this step. If the problem is solved, the selected countermeasure is considered successful. If the problem persists, the countermeasure did not work as expected, and another countermeasure is considered.
Step 8: Standardize the improved process: If the countermeasure is successful, the new process is established as a standard to be communicated across the organization or with involved TMs. The next round of kaizen is initiated.
Many organizations have established their own approaches to structured problem solving. Some of these approaches are briefly discussed in this section. For example, Ford uses a method called TOPS (Team Oriented Problem Solving), more commonly known as 8D (Q-1, 2016). The eight steps (shown in Table 1 ) can be classified into six broad groups as: describing a problem, verifying effectiveness of interim containment action, 4 carrying out a root cause analysis, brainstorming for a permanent corrective action, implementing and validating the plan, and standardizing the plan to prevent the same problem from occurring again. General Motors has a special squad for their problem solving practices called Red X [49] steps for which are also shown in Table 1 .
As can be observed from the steps listed in Table 1 , the approach used at Ford is fairly like the Toyota 8-step approach. Prevention, however, is identified as a distinct separate step in Ford's approach whereas with the TPS approach, it is considered an outcome from the process as a result of addressing the root cause; closure and team celebration also called out as specific steps, are integrated within the Toyota approach. The four main steps used in General Motors' approach are broad and somewhat generic. However, further examination of the substeps (shown in parenthesis) shows that, when all the sub-steps are considered collectively, the sequence followed for problem solving is quite similar in context to that used in the Toyota 8step approach. A generalized set of problem solving steps was established (Table 1 ) following this review for use in the research presented in this paper.
Based on the review of the presented methods, and the similarities between them, the following six steps for structured problem solving have been deduced to fit the cultural aspect pursued by this research. The six steps are described below.
1. 'Identifying, breaking down, prioritizing, and analyzing the root cause of a problem': In this step, the problem is clarified, broken down into smaller sub-problems and the root cause to the sub-problem that impacts performance the most is prioritized and analyzed. 2. 'Generation of countermeasures': This step will include target setting and developing alternative countermeasures following root cause analysis. 3. 'Selecting a countermeasure' by evaluating the practicality and implementation feasibility. 4. 'Implementing the best countermeasure and monitoring progress': Selecting the best possible countermeasure and effectively implementing it to monitor the changes in the process is the intent of this step. 5. 'Communicating countermeasure and progress': This step relates to communicating which countermeasure was implemented and how it impacted the process. 6. 'Problem/countermeasure movement': The other aspect that is relevant throughout the problem solving exercise is problem or countermeasure internal movement. In other words, this relates to the pace at which information flows up/down the organizational hierarchy, including for passing information about process standardization. We identify this aspect as 'problem/countermeasure movement' which becomes the sixth step in the generalized structured problem solving steps. Though communication of countermeasures (step 5) could be present, timely implementation to mitigate the impact on performance depends on how effectively and swiftly the information is communicated.
According to Lonner et al. 1980 [34] , organizational culture is a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes members of one group from another. Lundy abd Cowling 1995 [35] refer to culture as "the way" things are done in an organization. Bate 1984 [14] describes culture as "predominantly implicit in the minds of men; it is not something that is 'out there' with a separate existence of its own; neither is it directly observable." Schein 1992 [48] assayed organizational culture to be a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as problems of external adaptation, and internal integration are solved. This pattern has been assumed to work well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel about those problems. Culture is also considered the values, norms, beliefs, and customs that an individual holds in common with other members of a social unit or group [40] . Schein 1992 [48] and others agree with culture being a socially constructed attribute which serves as a "social glue" in binding an organization together. Licker and Hoseus 2008 [33] describe the culture at Toyota as the way employees automatically think and act every day. This type of culture has developed into a second personality for those individuals who have spent decades with Toyota but is still a secret to most people outside of the Toyota world.
There is consensus that culture refers to the taken-forgranted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, and definitions that characterize organizations and their members [17] . It is a customary and traditional way of thinking and doing things that are shared to a greater or lesser degree by all members of the organization [14] . In addition, new members of the organization must be inculcated in this way of thought and, at least partially, accept it in order to be received into service within the firm. In summary, an organization's culture could be viewed as how problems are handled within an organization, the way people behave, or the prevailing ideology that the employees carry in their minds. Culture influences the way the members of the organization think, feel, and behave.
Pursuing lean transformation does not merely depend on applying tools and techniques but developing a culture that supports Lean to derive the sustained benefits [13] ; it requires a transformation in corporate culture, practices, processes, and management [58] . The transition to lean requires more of a cultural change than altering processes or addressing technical issues [10] .
According to former TPS executives quoted by Badurdeen and Gregory 2012 [12] , 'True Lean TM ' is where TMs who do the work improve their work, with training and support 5 from management, to achieve company targets and goals. This improvement in work is achieved through structured problem solving to develop standardized work practices ( Figure 3 ). As illustrated, the lean culture helps provide one system (defining an agreed upon set of principles & practices) and a unified voice to guide problem solving at all levels within the organizational hierarchy. 'Soft side' consists of concepts and principles that are depicted in the figure as culture, as discussed in the introductory section earlier; this soft side provides the environment to consistently implement the tools (hard side) for problem solving. Thus, if an organization's culture does not promote a work environment that enables TMs to engage in structured problem solving to continuously challenge and improve existing processes, the journey towards sustained lean transformation is likely to be nothing but isolated and sporadic efforts to implement various lean tools. The True Lean TM perspective, therefore, underscores the potentially crucial implications of orga-nizational culture on structured problem solving practices for sustaining lean transformations.
Literature suggests that organizations successful in Lean transformations have a different culture [33] . Organizational culture is a very elusive and difficult to define. While some aspects of culture are very implicit, some explicit aspects such as behavioral traits are more easily understood. However, there are no known studies that have investigated even the more explicit organizational cultural traits that promote continuous improvement through structured problem solving. One study that has examined cultural traits for problem solving was presented by Bate 1984 [14] . While Bate's work did not address lean transformations, the identified traits present a sound basis for discovering traits that can help create an environment conducive to structured problem solving for lean. Because the Bate 1984 [14] study was done at a time when industrial practices were very different, the examples presented are somewhat archaic. Nevertheless, it can be considered one of the classical studies attempting to establish connections between observed organizational cultural traits and approaches to problem solving methods. [14] presented a number of traits that should not be present in organizations due to their capability to hinder effective problem solving. These traits are shown in Table 2 .
The negative cultural traits were observed and documented by Bate 1984 [14] after interviews with employees in three different industries. He defines unemotionality as a tendency to avoid sharing emotions, feelings or and individual views in fear of those being used against those who share them. Depersonalization is described as behavior that results in individuals avoiding taking responsibility. In other words, this is when the practice is to blame TMs (rather than commend them) for highlighting problems; such practices can eventually lead to problems not being identified early on in a process, leading to more 6 On most things, people will be opponents rather than allies.
waste further downstream. Depersonalization would deter efforts to establish a disciplined problem solving process. On the contrary, encouraging open expression and receptivity can improve alertness among team members to recognize the problem, thereby speeding up solving the problem [4] . Ohno et al. 2008 [42] explain how Toyota supports the culture of voicing contradictory opinions and bringing out problems because the TMs are coached in a way that they consider voicing their opinion as the right thing to do. [14] describes subordination as not challenging anyone in authority and always waiting for a superior to take the initiative for problem solving. This trait does not support a problem solving culture and can hinder TMs taking the initiative and interest in addressing a problem. Bate 1984 [14] refers to conservatism as the practice where individuals perceive that their participation and contribution is not valued; this can lead to employees staying away from improvement efforts. Isolationism or isolationist behavior is the practice where individuals avoid interfering with or, contributing to improve, others' work. In such an environment, where conformity expectation is high, the individual creative performance is decreased as conformity creates commonness [2] with minimal to no interaction between TMs. Thus, problem solving as a team will become a nearly impossible task. The trait of antipathy denotes superficiality of relationships resulting in lack of trust and isolationism. Bate 1984 [14] also asserts that this trait also leads to extreme group formation where a specific group of individuals strongly believe in certain values that they defend despite that stance leaning to more opponents than allies within the organization.
The study by Bate 1984 [14] focused on generic problem solving capability in organizations and identified cultural traits that affect structured problem solving. A closer examination of Toyota's 8-step problem solving approach and Bate's findings reveal consistent observations. For instance, open communication and teamwork are an essential part of the 8-step problem solving. Participants in lean transformations are all involved collaboratively and good communication forms the basis for a lean environment [7] . Thus, isolationism (in Bate's terms) is not a desired trait for a lean organization. Further, antipathy would also be an undesirable trait if the intent is to promote teamwork, as is the case with lean processes. Pinedo et al. 2012 [45] make an argument for organizational change where addressing people's "soft" skills is the primary step for the actual change. They conclude that cultural traits such as teamwork and involvement should be installed for a successful transformation otherwise opposing organizational structure and culture are likely to prevent organizational change efforts [45] . Not openly sharing in-dividual views and ideas ('unemotionality') can hinder brainstorming and creativity to identify countermeasures to address the root cause of a problem. The team-centered structure has improved operational performance. However, the issue of creativity and the potential of cross-functional teams is the key to radical improvement [23] , as such, creativity is the product of employees engagement and the personal emotional attachment of the employees to the problem. 'Subordination' deters continuous improvement. Challenging the status quo can be important for sustained improvement, particularly when current processes are performing satisfactorily and questioning the existing standard to artificially create a problem is necessary (lack of this trait is identified as 'subordination' by Bate). The importance of management using interactive control systems to enable continuous improvement has been emphasized in literature [44] . This is where managers engage with employees to steer their attention to critical improvement areas and avert performance stagnating at current levels.
Using the Bate 1984 [14] study as a foundation, six essential organizational culture traits necessary to promote an environment conducive for structured problem solving for lean transformations were identified (Table 3) .
The objective of the research presented in this paper is to establish if there exists any statistically significant relationship between the generic problem solving steps identified in Section 3.4 and the organizational cultural traits shown in Table 3 .
To assess any potential relationship between the (six) problem solving steps and the (six) organizational cultural traits conducive to problem solving (discussed in Sections 3 and 4, respectively) null hypotheses were formed by relating each one of these two aspects at a time. One of the aims during survey formulation was to avoid the acquiescence bias, which is common with surveys [56] . For example, the immediate response to the first hypothesis is obvious. Anyone would think that encouraging open expression helps to identify the problem. However, this is only an opinion. Therefore, as can be seen in table 4, there are two sets of questions: one assesses the opinion of the participants and the other cross-examines the participants opinions with their experience at their organization. If the answers provided are contradictory, then hypothesis no longer can be rejected. The hypotheses are shown below with the relevant 7 The way the management responds to the voice of the employees cultural trait and related problem solving step. A detailed description of the reasoning is also presented. This hypothesis is developed on the premise that promoting open expression of problems will enable better performance of problem solving steps listed. Questions to evaluate this null hypothesis focus on whether the TMs are encouraged to speak up about the problems they encounter/discover and whether they are blamed or rewarded for reporting it. It also addresses whether speaking out about a problem is looked upon as not respecting authority or organizational hierarchy. Encouraging open expression can define the rate of problem identification, problem breakdown, prioritizing and root cause analysis. An example set of statements that can be used to evaluate whether the organization promotes open expressions and the specific problem solving steps hypothesized to be influenced by this culture trait are shown in Table 4 .
The two criteria incorporated in this null hypothesis are:
1. Cultural Trait: Taking individual initiative.
Step: Generating countermeasures.
This hypothesis focuses on whether TMs can take individual initiative without waiting for approval from the supervisor. Taking the initiative in such situations can empower TMs and should be an appreciated cultural trait. Given that TMs are most knowledgeable about the work, this practice will ensure more effective problem solving. Also, it can lead to more countermeasure recommendations. For the sake of brevity, the remaining questionnaires are not shown here.
Collectivism/team work hinders the process of selecting the best countermeasure.
The two criteria incorporated in this null hypothesis are:
1. Culture trait: Collectivism/team work. 2. Problem solving step: Selecting the best countermeasure.
Collectivism encompasses the ability to work with individuals with different attitudes. Gathering different views during problem solving can help generate a variety of countermeasures. Also, maintaining a team culture provides more opportunities to critique countermeasures and assess their pros and cons. Moreover, working as a team provides TMs an opportunity to be listened to, encouraging more involvement.
The two criteria incorporated in this null hypothesis are:
1. Culture trait: Forming of unions. 2. Problem solving step: Implementing countermeasures and monitoring progress.
This trait refers to unionization and its potential effect. Unions are looked upon by management as a hindrance to changes in the way of doing things or for cultural change. This hypothesis posits that unions must be allowed to form if their goals are aligned with the ultimate goals of an organization. It can give a sense of unity amongst TMs and a sense of belonging to the organization. Overall, this cultural trait builds unity which can result in the meticulous implementation of a solution throughout an organization.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Problem solving is faster when TMs are unemotional.
The two criteria incorporated in this null hypothesis are:
1. Culture trait: Unemotionality. 2. Problem solving step: Pace of problem solving, communication/sharing of information.
This trait focuses on how much importance is given to the unemotionality factor in an organization. According to Bate 8 Speaking about any problem is taken by the management as an indication of me not fully understanding.
I am held responsible for problems I identify When I face a problem, I try to analyze the facts systematically.
1984 [14] , results were inconclusive as to whether unemotionality should be encouraged in an organization. If emotionality is encouraged, then do co-workers form a dependency on one another, or do they, at some point, feel vulnerable? Does an emotional atmosphere help achieving goals and creating a healthy culture that promotes faster problem solving?
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Organizational receptivity to problem identification leads to poor problem communication up/down the hierarchy.
The two criteria incorporated in this null hypothesis are:
1. Culture trait: Organizational receptivity. 2. Problem solving step: Problem/countermeasure movement.
This null hypothesis focuses on the importance of communication in an organization. The questions are framed to ascertain if receptivity leads to healthy communication assists in better messaging problem conditions up/down the hierarchy. How often and quickly do the problems, demands or grievances of the TMs reach management? Does management consider concerns of TMs before developing policies? All these influences how TMs perceive and receive management support and how they can influence and engage in problem identification for overall organizational benefit.
A survey-based approach was used to gather the necessary data to evaluate the hypotheses presented above. The Qualtrics software was utilized to develop an electronic survey using a seven-point Likert scale (with responses ranging from strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree) to gather respondent feedback.
The survey was administered online using individual email addresses and various list-serves. A cover page was included to describe the purpose of the survey, the type of questions included, and with an indication that no personal identifiers would be collected. To ensure a higher response rate, respondents were notified that no question was mandatory and that any question could be skipped if they were not comfortable responding due to any reason.
The survey responses are collected in two sets for each cultural trait and the corresponding problem solving step. There-fore, the null hypotheses are analyzed using a paired T-test with a 95% confidence interval.
A total of 246 survey responses were received out of which 68 respondents answered all the questions. For statistical consistency the hypothesis testing was done using only on the data from those who answered all the questions. Most of the targeted effort for obtaining responses was aimed at senior managers in organizations. Therefore, a large proportion of respondents (53%) had more than 10 years of service with their current organization. This indicates that they were not in entry-level positions, and their contribution to the survey is attributed to their experience. Therefore, we believe the responses are reliable and consistent.
The Minitab a statistical software was utilized to conduct the statistical analysis using the paired t-test. The correlations among the cultural trait-related questions and problem solving step-related questions were analyzed at 95% confidence interval. The p-values, correlation coefficients (r), test statistics (tvalue) and the decisions that can be made about each hypothesis are shown in Table 5 and discussed in 6.2.
The overall results, the hypotheses rejected/not rejected, and those inconclusive are discussed in detail in this section.
Hypothesis H1: Promoting open expression of problems does not influence problem identification, breakdown, prioritizing & analyzing the root cause: The null hypothesis was successfully rejected through the statistical analysis. The results reveal that encouraging open expression is a cultural trait that positively correlates with better problem identification, breakdown and prioritizing. Rational thinking, too, supports this. If TMs working on the line encounter a problem and are encouraged to share that information, problems are more likely to be identified and resolved quickly. If open expression is not allowed and a problem occurs, it is less likely to be exposed if TMs are fearful of being blamed for it.
Hypothesis H2: TMs taking the initiative to solve problems does not lead to an increased possibility of generating solutions 9 for the problems identified: This null hypothesis was successfully rejected. Thus, TMs taking the initiative to solve problems immediately, as they arise, without having to wait for management approval, will lead to much time being saved. Also, since the TMs are most knowledgeable about processes, they are more likely to come up with better solutions. Statistical analysis supports the converse of the hypothesis. Thus, it can be concluded that there exists a strong relationship between TMs in an organization taking the initiative to solve problems and the ability to generate solutions for identified problems. Hypothesis H3: Collectivism/teamwork hinders the process of selecting the best countermeasure: Data collected through the survey helped successfully reject this hypothesis. Rational thinking leads one to expect teamwork to help when selecting the best countermeasure since it would be a decision made by consensus. Arieli and Sagiv 2018 [9] argue that a collectivistic mindset is not superior to an individualistic mindset in how successfully they promote problem solving. Instead, they contend it is the type of problem that affects success in problem solving. They categorize problems into two types: rule-based where deductive reasoning is required and context-based where inductive reasoning should be applied. They conclude that the individualistic mindset yields success for the rule-based problem whereas a collectivistic mindset is necessary for success with context-based problems. Since most of the problems are complex and multi-facet, thus, team work and collectivism are important traits in enabling countermeasure development.
Hypothesis H4: Unity/goal alignment does not help in following the implemented solution: The null hypothesis was successfully rejected. Unionization, in general, is considered a hindrance to major organizational changes. Mleyeff 2014 [36] emphasized this point, indicating that unions can be a hindrance, especially when their approach is inconsistent with organizational change or when unions are perceived as being held responsible for the program's success. Unions being a hindrance can also be a pre-determined belief of managers. Chen 2007 [18] suggested that managers typically tend to regard unions as a hindrance to workplace flexibility and timely response. These were some reasons to include this specific hypothesis in the study. However, if we exclude the misconception about the unions, and assume that the unions have the same goal as that of the organization, we can conclude that unions are beneficial.
Hypothesis H5: Problem solving is faster when TMs are emotional: Data collected through the survey helped reject this null hypothesis. Toyota as the epitome of a lean enterprise has created a learning culture where TMs effort on continuous improvement is in everything they do, every day [50] . Developing countermeasures to solve problems is highly dependent on the openness of TMs to share individual perspectives about potential solutions without hesitation. Thus, the results show that there is a correlation between TMs being unemotional or, open and sharing ideas freely and how quickly problems can be resolved.
Hypothesis H6: Organizational receptivity to problem identification leads to poor problem communication up/down the hierarchy. This hypothesis was rejected supporting the premise that better receptivity in an organization leads to better communication and, therefore, enables faster countermeasure implementation and sharing. If management is not receptive enough to listen to TMs input about problems or possible countermeasures, the TMs will most likely not inform the supervisor when a problem is encountered next. Successful lean transformation is in part due to implementation from the top down [50] . Thus, managerial receptivity for TM input can be considered an important cultural trait that has a correlation with an organizations culture for disciplined problem solving.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that very few organizations are successful in sustaining Lean transformations. Continuous improvement in lean-focused organizations is achieved through the application of structured problem solving practices. Prior research suggests that an organization's culture is an essential factor that influences the nature of problem solving practices used. This research focused on establishing whether a relationship exists between different organizational culture traits and problem solving practices for an organization to succeed with Lean transformation. Survey data were used to evaluate six different hypotheses that posit a potential relationship between a set of organizational culture traits and generalized structured problem solving steps.
Analysis of the survey results helped successfully reject all of the six null hypotheses. Based on these findings, the following conclusions can be derived. There is a correlation between promoting open expression of problems and TMs ability to quickly identify, break down, prioritize and analyze the root cause of the sub-problem during the problem solving process (based on H1). TMs taking the initiative to solve problems correlates with their ability to help generate solutions for the problem identified (based on H2). Collectivism/teamwork correlates with the process of selecting the best countermeasure (based on H3). The ability to implement countermeasures and monitor progress is related to unity/goal alignment (based on H4). A relationship exists between the pace at which problems are solved (as well as information is shared/communicated) and whether TMs openly share individual views and ideas (based on H5). Organizational receptivity to TMs identifying/exposing problems and problem communication up/down the hierarchy are correlated (based on H6). These results indicate that TMs engaging in continuous problem solving depends on their ability to be flexible in identifying and exposing problems. This also aligns with what Pakdil and Leonard 2015 [43] have posited indicating that a balanced culture where both flexibility and uniformity is essential for lean processes.
In summary, the findings of the work presented in this paper can guide organizations in their journey of Lean transformations. From a practical perspective, the study findings can be beneficial for organizations in learning the type of work environments to promote if a culture conducive for successful lean transformations is desired. As discussed earlier, an organization's culture is highly implicit and difficult to change. However, the study results show the existence of certain easily identifiable traits that can help develop behavior conducive to sustained Lean transformations. For example, the findings indicate that TMs must be encouraged to take the initiative to expose problems and communicate ideas openly, two behavioral traits that must be fostered. Management can design training and development initiatives that will help advancing such capabilities among the TMs. If an organization is new to the practice of employee-initiated problem identification, TMs may at first be reluctant to expose problems in fear of being reprimanded or made fun of. In such cases, management can encourage anonymous problem reporting as a first step, followed by the announcement of advances made through employee's suggestions. Public recognition of employees for their improvement ideas successfully implemented can motivate TMs to be more forthcoming in expressing work-related problems. Idea generation, brainstorming, and problem identification, as well as communication, are also more likely to take place in team working environments. Even if teamwork is not the norm in the orga-nization, management can help create problem solving teams, such as 'Quality Circles', to help promote an environment where employees will have the opportunity to discuss and brainstorm work-related issues. According to the study findings, improving TMs capabilities by encouraging some explicit and easy to identify behavioral (trait) changes such as these can help a company navigate towards building the organizational culture that will help sustain and succeed with lean transformations.
The research presented in this paper was conducted as an initial step to empirically establish potential relationships between problem solving steps and organizational culture traits. As such, the hypotheses were formulated by considering the correlation between one (or a few) problems solving step(s) with a single culture trait. However, it is very likely that many different traits have an influence on the ability of TMs to perform specific problem solving steps and vice versa. Therefore, future research should consider evaluating multiple problem solving steps and culture traits, instead of the one-to-one correlation considered in this study. This work also provides an insight into the need to investigate and study more cultural traits and to explore their importance for problem solving.