To Jeffrey Byrom, productivity means his company pays him an extra $1.50/hour. To an employee of another company, it may mean something completely different. Nevertheless, productivity sometimes comes at a price, and that price may not always be quantified in dollars and cents.

Byrom works at a company called Westinghouse Air Brake, a Chicago-based parts manufacturer, and his story was recently told on the front page of The Wall Street Journal. His 10-hour workday is what the article terms "hyper-productive." Implementing the Japanese-born kaizen approach (better known to our industry as continuous improvement), his company has created a "cell," so to speak, where Byrom is responsible for running three machines simultaneously. When he finishes with his portion of the process, he puts the completed part on a conveyor system that moves about every two-and-a-half minutes. Should he be slow or should one of the machines have a glitch and a part is not placed on the conveyor every time it moves, he risks holding up production all the way down the manufacturing line.

Since the workers are only compensated their extra $1.50/hour bonus if the line reaches its overall daily production quota, holdups are not looked upon favorably.

Although the article reports that each worker on Byrom's line is now producing 10 times more per day than eight years ago, such productivity has come at a price that amounts to much more than $1.50/hour. First, it has created a great deal of stress among the employees. Paul Dawson, one of the men who gets called in when workers need help on a particular machine, said this stress actually changes the way people behave. It is true that the hectic pace leaves employees little time to interact with one another or even speak to each other.

Perhaps this explains why when there is a problem on the line, it is easily shrugged off and blamed on someone else. For example, on a slow day, Byrom signalled to another employee, Michael Peoples, to speed things up. People's response was, "Don't tell me, tell them," as he motioned up the line. So what is in theory a team-based approach to manufacturing, is in practice a set of isolated stations with little of the spirit that actually makes a team. The feeling of belonging that many managers seek to create among their workers is often sacrificed for productivity.

It could also be argued that with few relationships, employees feel less loyalty toward the company. Byrom, for example, spends much of his free time looking for a higher paying job. In the box and carton industry, which already struggles with high turnover, relationships are critical to keeping good employees.

Individual creativity can also be stifled in such a system, which preaches that everything in the process must be dictated and followed. Although the processes are constantly changing, once a method is established, it is to be adhered to exactly, leaving little room for individuality.

Yet the kaizen approach has its fans too. Few would argue that many managers who study it and embrace it, do, in fact, bring their companies to a new level. Many employees praise it because it relieves the boredom of continuously running the same machine and makes their workday go by faster. For other employees it enhances their skills and gives them positive reinforcement when a job is completed in a timely manner.

So there must be a happy medium. Can't workers function within a team-based system, but also truly feel that they are part of team, perhaps even going so far as to help a worker down the line who may be having trouble? Can't employees follow a procedure but also have room to make their jobs their own by bringing creative practices to the process? And can't employees be efficient, and still find the time to form valuable relationships with their co-workers and managers?

I think the answer is "yes" to all of the above-at no price.