HOW KNOWLEDGE AND OPPORTUNITY
AFFECT WORK DESIGN BEHAVIOR
By
André Gjaltema
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Pre-MSc Supply Chain Management
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to give more insight into how knowledge and opportunity affect the work design behavior of managers when implementing a smart manufacturing technology. An exploratory multiple case study was conducted involving three companies that have implemented a smart technology within their company. The results show that managers with both explicit and implicit knowledge tend to design enriched work whereas managers without explicit knowledge are unaware of work design and focus on efficiency. Opportunity is an important factor when designing work. Having authority does not necessarily mean having the opportunity to design work. This study contributes by giving additional insight into how knowledge and opportunity affect work design behavior of managers, where previous studies merely focused on one of these factors.
Keywords: Smart manufacturing, Knowledge, Opportunity, Work design behavior, Work
design
Supervisor: S.A. Waschull
1. INTRODUCTION
The fourth industrial revolution is also known as Industry 4.0 (Frank, Dalenogare, & Ayala, 2019). This revolution is associated with drastically changing the way we work through technological changes and is, therefore, getting a lot of attention in both media, professional and academic fields (Frank et al., 2019; Parker & Grote, 2020; Stock & Seliger, 2016). Industry 4.0 has smart manufacturing as its central element (Kagermann, Wahlster, & Helbig, 2013). In smart manufacturing, the coupling of information systems and physical components through the use of digital technologies plays a central role (Lee, Bagheri, & Kao, 2015). Smart manufacturing is changing both the way we organize work and the way we work i.e. work design (Parker, 2014). The overall impact and exact changes of the industrial revolution are for now unknown (Waschull, Bokhorst, Molleman, & Wortmann, 2020). What we do know is that the impact of technology on work design is often mediated through the decisions made by managers (Parker, Van Den Broeck, & Holman, 2017) and that poor work design continues to exist in which the decisions made by managers play a significant role (Parker, Andrei, & Van den Broeck, 2019; Parker et al., 2017). This paper, therefore, aims to get a better understanding of the decisions made by managers regarding work design around smart manufacturing technologies and give more insight into why poorly designed jobs continue to exist.
knowledge of managers affect work design (Parker et al., 2019, 2017). However, little attention was given to the underlying relations between KSAs, motivation and opportunity, and their effect on work design and claim that more research is needed into the relations between these factors (Parker et al., 2019, 2017; Waschull et al., 2020). Therefore this paper aims to answer the following research question: How does the knowledge of managers and their opportunity
to design work influence their work design behavior during the implementation of smart technology?
Studies have shown that new technologies can affect work design greatly (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016; Parker & Grote, 2020) and that poorly designed jobs continue to exist in many contemporary organizations (Parker et al., 2019). This paper aims to give a better understanding of why managers make certain decisions when designing work and give more insight into why poorly designed jobs continue to exist. By shining a light on the work design behavior of managers this paper tries to create more knowledge in the work field and thereby contribute to better-designed jobs in the future. This is done by studying existing literature and through the analysis of six semi-structured interviews at three companies that implemented smart technology.
In the following section, an overview of relevant literature is shown to give more insight into the concepts of work design, opportunity, knowledge, and work design behavior. The methodology section describes how the case study was designed. The findings sections contains the analysis of the results and lastly, conclusions, and a discussion regarding the subject will be presented.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Work design
characteristics, and job demands (Parker & Grote, 2020). These job characteristics will be affected in different ways depending on the purpose of the technology (Waschull et al., 2020). Potential effects on work design could include an increase in cognitive demands, or a decrease of tasks due to automation of the processes(Parker & Grote, 2020).
Job autonomy and control is probably the most important aspect of work design (Parker & Grote, 2020). Parker & Grote (2020) define the five characteristics as follows. Job autonomy and control consists of two main categories; decision-making as part of work processes and choice over when and where to work. The second characteristic is skill variety and use, which consists of several aspects that are related to tasks and the job itself, such as job complexity, task identity, and task significance. Third, is job feedback and related work characteristics which focuses on the 'knowledge of results' and related characteristics that help to master a job. Social and relational aspects focus on the need for social interaction and interpersonal connections within one's job and is the fourth characteristic that was identified. Lastly, the effect of technology on job demands focuses on the increasing/decreasing use of cognitive skills and physical demands. The job characteristics that are mostly affected in smart manufacturing are job complexity, skill variety, and job autonomy (Waschull et al., 2020). The consideration of these job characteristics can either have a positive or negative effect on e.g. motivation, stress, learning, and performance (Parker et al., 2019). Although these characteristics are influenced by the technology its effect is none deterministic (Parker & Grote, 2020) and depends on the work design behavior of managers which will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Work design behavior
where employees rotate from one job to another, or job enlargement, where additional similar level tasks are added to the content of employees’ jobs, to motivate employees (Parker, 2014). Job simplification is characterized by an absence of the previously mentioned job characteristics (Parker, 2014) in which employees often have to perform a smaller amount of simple and monotonous tasks (Cordery & Parker, 2012). Work design behavior of managers is shaped by (1) motivation and knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs), and (2) opportunity (Parker et al., 2017). KSAs help managers to identify different options and to improve their decisions. Examples of KSAs are managers’ ability to identify and make use of the expertise of employees and their knowledge about work design (Parker et al., 2017). The factors knowledge and opportunity will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Knowledge
Knowledge about work design gained through training and education is known as explicit knowledge (Parker et al., 2019). Explicit knowledge, concerning work design, is training in work design theories (e.g., the job characteristics model, the demand model) and training in topics that are important to design enriched work (e.g. motivation, work stress, person-organization fit) (Parker et al., 2019). Besides explicit knowledge, managers also rely on their implicit knowledge for work design.
Implicit knowledge is the knowledge that managers use during work design as a result of experience and is a result of a subconscious learning process (Reber, 1976). Implicit knowledge is obtained through experience of designing jobs but also through the design of ones' job (Parker et al., 2017). Experience is fundamental to translate theoretical knowledge into improved work design (Parker et al., 2019). Parker et al. (2019) found that when work designers did not have any training and are unaware of work design, they tend to design jobs in a functional way and do not take aspects of the job into account that could lead to job enrichment. People with training in work design are more likely to try and design enriched jobs. Finally, individuals who are trained and have the opportunity and experience in the practice of designing work are most likely to design enriched work.
Opportunity
surrounding a person and his or her task that enables or constrains that person’s task performance and that are beyond the person’s direct control.” (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982: 565). The surrounding forces that enable or constraint a manager can also be defined as contextual forces (Parker et al., 2019). Parker et al. (2017) identified higher-level external, organizational, local, and individual forces that influence the decisions managers make. Formal authority is also closely related to opportunity (Parker et al., 2017). Higher-level managers often make strategic decisions that affect work design for employees across the whole organization (Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2007), whereas managers on a lower level are more likely to make decisions regarding the work design of smaller groups of employees (Piccolo, Greenbaum, den Hartog, & Folger, 2010).
Conceptual framework
The use of smart manufacturing technologies can affect the different job characteristics, or work design, of employees. These job characteristics however, are mostly influenced by the work design decisions that managers make. The decisions managers make regarding these job characteristics, is also known as work design behavior and is affected by several factors of which knowledge and opportunity. Difference in knowledge and opportunity between different managers leads to different types of work design behavior. As a result of the difference in work design behavior, the impact of smart technology can either lead to enriched or simplified jobs. This is visualized in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Conceptual framework
3. METHODS
Research design & setting
To answer the research question, a qualitative research design has been conducted. The goal of qualitative research is to create a method to approach, understand, analyze, and explain management phenomena (Delattre, Ocler, Moulette, & Rymeyko, 2009). A case study investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth within its real-life context, especially when the difference between the phenomena is not obvious (Yin, 2009). A multiple case study has been conducted, as it is suited to explore and provide an in-depth explanation about a real-life problem (Yin, 2009), in this case, the exploration and explanation of how different levels of knowledge and opportunity affect the work design behavior of managers.
Case selection and setting
The unit of analysis in this study are the managers that were involved in the implementation of smart technology. These managers were chosen based on a certain set of criteria:
1. The manager has been involved in the implementation of a smart manufacturing technology;
2. The decisions the manager made affected the work design of employees;
3. The managers interviewed had different levels of knowledge regarding work design; 4. The managers had different levels of opportunity to design work.
Companies that participated in this study comprised of 50 employees or more. In table 1 an overview is given of the selected cases. The cases were selected based on the factors above as they address the crucial factors to answer the research question. When selecting the cases, the focus was put on creating a substantial diversity of knowledge and opportunity between interviewees.
TABLE 1
Case and interview details Company name
(anonymized)
Organization X Organization Y Organization Z
Smart manufacturing project Sensorial and computer-aided production machine Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) & Manufacturing Execution System (MES) Data warehouse system Interviewee 1 Manufacturing Engineer (X1) Manager Planning and Logistics (Y1)
Sector Manager (Z1)
Interviewee 2 HR-Manager (X2) Operations Manager (Y2)
Head of Technology (Z2)
Data collection
For the data collection, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Semi-structured interview scripts offer flexibility but also provide a level of consistency throughout the interviews so interviews can be compared (Louise Barriball & While, 1994). The interviews were conducted by a research team from the University of Groningen. Each researcher interviewed two managers that were involved or affected by the implementation of smart technologies using a standardized interview script, resulting in a total of six interviews. The script was based on the theory of previous studies described in the theoretical framework. The interviews took place at either the company or virtually through platforms like Skype or Microsoft Teams. The use of a semi-structured interview script offered flexibility yet a good guide for the outcomes of each interview to become similar. It also allowed each interviewer to go more in-depth into interesting topics that came to light during the interview. With the consent of the manager, the interviews were voice-recorded. The interviews were transcribed word-for-word. The results of the interviews were anonymized. The interview script is included in the appendix.
Data analysis
knowledge, and opportunity. The first-order codes were then made more descriptive in second-order codes that relate to the theory such as work experience, education, authority, and skill variety and use. To safeguard the trustworthiness, as described, all coding was done in line with existing theoretical frameworks and literature (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). By determining the different levels of knowledge and opportunity differences in work design behavior can be identified. The coding table is displayed in Table 2.
TABLE 2 Coding table Themes Second-order code Definition
Work design behavior
Decisions regarding job autonomy
Decisions regarding the decision-making freedom of the employee
Decisions regarding skill variety and use
Decisions regarding job complexity, task identity, and task significance
Decisions regarding job demands
Decisions regarding the use of cognitive skills and physical demands
Decisions regarding social and relational aspects
Decisions regarding social interaction and interpersonal connections between employees
Decisions regarding job feedback
Decisions regarding ‘the knowledge of results’ and related characteristics concerning mastering ones’ job
Employee involvement
The involvement of employees during the implementation and design of work
Work design knowledge
Work experience Relevant work experience that managers use during the design of jobs
Education Followed and finished education
Experience designing work
Experience from previous projects or daily tasks in designing work
Other learning experience
Other sources where a manager obtained knowledge, like observations and through communication
Opportunity Authority to design work
Having the possibility and seniority to design work without interference
Project role The role of the manager during the project Contextual
influences
External influences such as laws, organizational influences or employees
4. FINDINGS
In this chapter, an overview of the different cases will be given. First, every case will be discussed individually. Consequently, a cross-case analysis will be provided. For each case, the knowledge, opportunity, and work design behavior will be described.
Case X1 – Manufacturing Engineer
The manufacturing engineer recently finished his bachelor’s degree in Advanced Sensor Applications and a master’s degree in Biomedical Engineering. During his studies and work, he never received any training regarding work design. His relevant work experience consists of his current role as an engineer. In his role, he learned about work design through observations and the execution of projects. He indicates that implicit knowledge is more important than explicit knowledge.
“Theory describes an ideal situation, which is often understandable with common sense however in the end experience is the most important”
The engineer was responsible for the installation and validation of the machine, in which he had the opportunity to do whatever he thought was necessary for the machine to become operable. He was limited to design work exactly the way he wanted due to a limited budget and legislation and regulations regarding the production of medical devices.
The engineer tried to involve both the employees and the managers when installing and validating the machine to keep both parties satisfied and motivated. The main focus was efficiency, work design was put in second place. However, he consciously improved job feedback and demands by putting alarms on the machine and assigning cognitive tasks to employees, indicating enriched work design behavior.
“We chose to leave the monitoring of the product quality to the employee instead of the machine”
"Work became less labor-intense, instead they make more use of their cognitive abilities" Case X2 – HR-Manager
For her studies, she completed cultural anthropology and a master's in Managing Human Resources. The HR-manager has been active in her field for 25 years in which she fulfilled the roles of HR-advisor and HR-manager during which she executed several implementation projects. During both her education and work, she received training in work design and knows the underlying theory. Besides the work experience and training, she learned a lot about work design because she is also affected by work design in her own job.
“I’m also an employee which makes you understand what some decisions do to you, which is the same for the people whose work you design”
The HR-Manager was not involved and unaware of the project and thus had no opportunity to design work. The manager does have the opportunity to get involved in future projects and thinks she can contribute substantially to a successful implementation.
“The technology was implemented from a very technical perspective, from a human point of view we still have some repairing to do”
When designing work the manager looks at it from an employees’ point of view. What knowledge and skills are needed and how much job autonomy would I want. According to her, employee involvement is therefore a very important aspect. Every project is different, knowing what employees want, and using their skills and knowledge is very important.
“When an employee is satisfied, he’s motivated which is beneficial for both employee and employer.”
Case Y1 – Manager Planning and Logistics
management and change management and also learned through observation. During her studies, she was taught about work design but forgot what it is actually about. This manager values experience and use of common sense more than explicit knowledge.
“We mixed up the tasks to make work more interesting, I didn’t get that from books but learned that from experience.”
During the project, her role was the first point of contact which included successfully implementing the technology together with the project team. The template of the technology was already finished, however, during the implementation she had little restrictions as long as she stuck to the budget and gave feedback on the process. Major changes in work design were also restricted due to the potential interference of labor parties.
“Some things you can’t influence and that’s what it is, then the message is: just deal with it.”
During the implementation key-users were involved throughout the whole process, they could decide what the final system looked like in terms of interface. For some employees, the implementation resulted in task enlargement. Forklift drivers e.g. now have to perform visual checks and weigh the incoming goods as it was a more efficient way of working. However, some roles were negatively influenced by the implementation. The managers’ main focus was on efficiency and not work design.
“A role consists of certain tasks and it’s not always about making it interesting, that’s not how it works.”
Case Y2 – Operations Manager
The operations manager finished her studies Business Administration and a master's in Supply Chain Management. After her studies, she became active in the service sector as a consultant where she executed several projects which involved involving designing work. She then became project and continuous improvement (CI) manager at Organization Y. In her studies, she learned about work design which knowledge she still tries to maintain. During her career, she received training in CI but not work design. This manager values both explicit and implicit knowledge.
“I still read articles about work design whenever I need to update my knowledge.”
finished template. Other than that, the manager had the opportunity to execute her plans as long as she could support it.
“One of the biggest influences on work design is money.”
During the implementation, the manager decided to separate roles leading to job simplification and reduced job satisfaction. After splitting the roles, she did add additional similar level tasks to the role to be able to rotate between jobs to make the job more challenging. Efficiency is the most important factor for the operations manager.
“I focus on efficiency, signals for job enrichment are mostly bottom-up provided by my own team”
Case Z1 – Sector Manager
The sector manager finished his bachelor Chemical Technology and fulfilled several engineering roles throughout his career. He didn’t have experience with the implementation of a similar technology and obtained most of his knowledge by attending seminars and from communication with colleagues. He has no further knowledge of the underlying theory. He is part of a management development program in which he learns how to motivate employees. This manager thinks explicit knowledge can be very helpful to design work as he still struggles with his current knowledge of work design.
"I use my common sense, look around, and make a decision. I haven't read any theory, didn't even know it existed."
The manager had the authority to make his own decisions. However, he needed to run it by other departments like HR and other managers for approval.
“you can’t just make decisions on your own, you always need to consult with colleagues.”
In the startup phase, the manager did not really involve employees. After getting signals from his employees that they wanted to be involved, he started involving them in the implementation, however, this was in a later stage of the project. He then took on a more guiding role. He would plant an idea and eventually made the employees owner of the project. He found it important to make use of their knowledge as they are professionals that can deliver valuable input and also because they have to work with the system.
Case Z2 – Head of Technology
The head of technology has mostly fulfilled managerial roles during his career within underground construction companies focused on pipelines. Before his career, he finished his studies in civil engineering. Later in his career, he completed an MBA and received training in soil investigation and management. During his MBA he was taught about work design theories and considers explicit knowledge to be important. During a previous project implementing SAP, he learned that employee involvement is very important.
“That project was managed top-down, resulting in a lot of negativity and resistance, employees can make or break your project which was an eye-opener.”
As program manager, his role during the project was to facilitate and give guidance in general. Restrictions came in the form of budget limitations. Employees also gave some resistance as they had to work with a new technology and perform more work behind the computer, however, the work design was not influenced by the manager.
“Decisions regarding work design were made by the project group, I didn’t influence those decisions.”
When making decisions about the technology, the manager involved his employees and told them to be critical about the technology as they had to work with it. He would then use their feedback to develop the system. This manager steers on job enrichment and tries to give his employees as much freedom as possible as they are highly educated professionals.
“During a project I tell my employees, think for yourself how you want to do it, I’m not going to order you.”
Cross case analysis
however think the involvement of employees is very important and take the job characteristics into account when designing jobs, indicating enriched work design behavior.
Managers Y2 and Z1 have limited explicit knowledge of work design. Y2 was taught about work design during her studies and tries to maintain that knowledge by reading articles and Z1 received training in work design in his current role. Both managers do consider explicit knowledge to be helpful and important when designing work. Y2 has a lot of implicit knowledge from previous jobs and projects, whereas Z1 also relies on knowledge of other managers and the use of his common sense. The opportunity of manager Y2 was restricted due to a fixed template. Both managers were limited regarding their budget but were free to do what was necessary as long as they ran it by fellow managers first. Manager Y2 split up roles, increasing specialization and reducing skill variety and use. However, through job enlargement and job rotation, she tried to keep her employees motivated. Z1 initially did not involve his employees but after receiving signals from his staff he started involving them eventually giving them full control over parts of the project. This led to job enrichment for his employees as they received extra job autonomy.
Managers X1 and Y1 both had no explicit knowledge of work design and indicated that they did not necessarily value explicit knowledge. Both managers claimed that with common sense and implicit knowledge the same results can be achieved. They designed work based on experience and observations. They had the opportunity to do whatever they thought was necessary within their role but were limited in their budget. Y1 was also limited due to a fixed template. Both managers involved employees in a later stage of the project because they did find it important to involve them as they had to work with the systems. X1 eventually designed an enriched job by increasing job demands and feedback but mainly looked at efficiency during the implementation. Y1 designed both enlarged and simplified jobs. Both managers’ purely focused on efficiency and put work design second.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
work design and some experience consider the motivational aspects of work but lean towards a more functional approach of work design. Z1 showed more enriched work design behavior when made aware of the consequences of his decisions whereas Y2 designed simplified jobs but tried to increase the motivational factor through job enlargement and rotation, indicating semi-enriched work design behavior. Managers that had no explicit knowledge of work design (X1 and Z1) purely focused on the technology and had a functional approach thus did not take the job characteristics into account. This falls perfectly in line with the research by (Parker et al., 2019) in which they showed that knowledge and awareness of work design resulted in enriched work design behavior, and a lack of these factors resulted in the design of simplified jobs.
Managers were free to do what they thought was necessary for the implementation to become a success, as long as they kept their colleagues informed. They, therefore, had the authority to design work. However, within their respective roles, this was not always possible. The two managers that were most likely to design enriched work both had little to no influence on the work design of employees. X2 was not involved in the project whereas Z2 had a more guiding role as program manager due to which he did not directly influence the work design of employees. Authority, therefore, is not necessarily an enabler for opportunity to design work but the project role is. Managers X1, Y1, Y2, and Z1 had a more implementing role in which they influenced work design directly. The role of the manager plays a significant part in the opportunity to design work. Opportunity was restricted by contextual influences in several ways. Higher-external influences such as legislation and labor parties interfered with the work design behavior of managers. The main organizational factors that influenced opportunity were budget and unwilling employees which affected the work design behavior of managers. These factors affected work design behavior which coincides with the research by (Parker et al., 2017) in which contextual influences were considered to be mediated through managers and affect work design.
Implications
Despite the extensive research that has been done into work design, poorly designed jobs continue to exist (Parker et al., 2019, 2017). This paper helps to better understand the work design behavior of managers and the mediators of this behavior. However, new questions arise based on these results. Knowledge is a mediator that influences the design of enriched or simplified work but its effect is not the only influence. The most important finding is that the role of managers significantly influences the opportunity to design work. Authority is an important factor but even managers in the wrong role with a lot of authority did not have the opportunity to design work. Further research is needed on this topic to fully understand the work design behavior of managers. Research should focus on the role of a manager and how this affects their work design behavior. Employee involvement was a big role within every case, but their actual input was outside the scope of this paper. To prevent poor work design in the future, companies should consider improving explicit knowledge of the managers that are involved in the implementation of a smart manufacturing technology by giving them training in work design. By doing so these managers are more likely to design enriched work which is both beneficial for the company as employees. As stated, the role and opportunity of managers is an important factor in the way they can design work, which companies should consider.
Limitations
REFERENCES
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. D. 1982. The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4): 560–569.
Cordery, J., & Parker, S. K. 2012. Work Design: Creating Jobs and Roles That Promote Individual Effectiveness. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0009.
Delattre, M., Ocler, R., Moulette, P., & Rymeyko, K. 2009. Singularity of qualitative research : From collecting information to producing results. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 7: 33–51.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory Building from Cases : Opportunities and Challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 50(1): 25–32.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. 2019. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210(January): 15–26.
Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: OH: World Publishing Company.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. 2016. Digitization of industrial work: development paths and prospects. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1): 1–14.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Kagermann, Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. 2013. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. Final report of the Industrie 4.0 WG.
Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H. A. 2015. A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3: 18–23.
Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. 1994. Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01088.x.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. The leadership skills strataplex: Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly, 18(2): 154–166.
Parker, S. K. 2014. Beyond Motivation: Job and Work Design for Development, Health, Ambidexterity, and More. Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1): 661–691.
Parker, S. K., Andrei, D. M., & Van den Broeck, A. 2019. Poor work design begets poor work design: Capacity and willingness antecedents of individual work design behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7): 907–928.
Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. 2020. Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World. Applied Psychology, 0(0): 1–45.
Parker, S. K., Van Den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. 2017. Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 267–308.
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., den Hartog, D. N., & Folger, R. 2010. The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.627.
Reber, A. S. 1976. Implicit learning of synthetic languages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2: 88–94.
Stock, T., & Seliger, G. 2016. Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.129.
Waschull, S., Bokhorst, J. A. C., Molleman, E., & Wortmann, J. C. 2020. Work design in future industrial production: Transforming towards cyber-physical systems. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 139(January 2019): 105679.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Applied Social Research Methods Seiries.
APPENDIX Interview script
1. Company information
1. Could you describe your company in terms of: - Industry
- Products and services
- Types of markets (B2B/B2C) - Number of employees
- Company structure
2. Information on the project 2.1 Project
1. Could you describe the innovation program/project? (design, choice, implementation)
2. Which have been the technologies implemented?
3. What was the main reason for the choice of this technology?
i. Which organizational and technological factors were focused on? 4. Have different technologies/projects been considered?
5. Which were the main objectives and motivation for the project?
2.2 Managers
6. Who was involved in this project? i. What were their roles?
7. What was your role during the implementation of the technology? 8. Did you have all the resources necessary to make the project a success? 9. Where there any constraints during the project?
2.3 Outcomes
10. Which have been the processes impacted by the new technology?
11. Which company sites and units have been impacted by the implementation of the project?
i. Did the implementation affect the unit as a whole or only some of the employees?
ii. Were these employees involved in the project?
iv. How was this change managed?
v. Were the KSAs of employees considered during the project?
12. What kind of training did the employees get regarding the new technology? i. Was this training individual or on team basis and why?
ii. By whom was this training given?
13. Did the decision making processes change as a result of the project?
14. What kind of communication was used during the project towards employees?
3. Disciplinary background
1. What (relevant/higher) education did you finish?
i. Did you have any additional training regarding your work field? 2. What is your role in the company?
3. What is your previous (relevant) work experience?
4. What kind of training/education did you get regarding the implementation of technology?
5. What kind of training/education did you get regarding work design? 6. Did you consider this training during the project?
i. If yes, how did this help you?
4. Personal influences
1. Do you have any previous experience in implementation of technology? 2. Was your job ever affected by technological change?
i. How did you cope with this change? 3. What is your attitude towards change?
4. What were your personal goals (motivation) during the project? 5. What was the main drive/focus for you during the project?
6. What skills you possessed were most useful during the implementation? 7. Were there any skills you needed during the project you didn’t possess?
5. End
1. Do you consider the implementation a success and why? 2. What were negative outcomes of the project?
4. Would you change the approach if you could do it again? 5. What would you change?
