HOW KNOWLEDGE AND OPPORTUNITY
INFLUENCES MANAGERS’ WORK DESIGN
BEHAVIOR
Research Paper for Pre-MSc SCM
Research Project 1B: The role of managers in shaping work design
By
Robbin Plat, S2341220
Supervisor: S.A. Waschull
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
21 June 2020
Address: Nieuwe Boteringestraat 72-9, Groningen Mail: r.g.plat@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This paper aims to create a better understanding on how knowledge and opportunity influences managers’ work design behavior, while being involved in the implementation of Smart Manufacturing Technology.
Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory case study was conducted consisting of four companies that are operating in the manufacturing industry, which currently have been or are implementing smart manufacturing technology.
Findings – Key findings show that managers with explicit knowledge tend to design enriched work. Managers who lack explicit knowledge, have considerable opportunity and/or a focus on efficiency tend to design simplified work.
Originality/value – This study gives further insight into the knowledge on how the specific individual attributes, knowledge and opportunity, influence managers’ work design behavior. This research therefore contributes to the insight that considerations to enrich work can be increased by training and educating managers about work design.
Keywords Smart Manufacturing, Work Design, Work Design Behavior
Paper type Case study
Supervisor S.A. Waschull
INTRODUCTION
One of the most trending topics in both professional and academic fields is industry 4.0 (Chiarello et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2017), with Smart Manufacturing (SM) as its central element (Kagermann et al., 2013). Smart manufacturing technology (SMT) refers to the pervasive implementation of networked, and information-based technologies throughout the manufacturing enterprize (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016) and it has the potential to affect key aspects of work design (Parker & Grote, 2020; Humphrey et al., 2007). Work design can be described as the the content and organization of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities (Parker, 2014). In general, technological change could affect work design in a positive or negative way (Parker et al., 2017). Yet the impact of technology is nondeterministic and depends on various factors (Coovert & Thompson, 2013). In particular, the extent to which technology shapes work design will often be mediated by the decisions of managers (Parker et al., 2017). Decisions of managers regarding work design can lead to job enrichment or job simplification. Previous research showed the positive effects of enriched work designs for individual and organizational outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007). Nevertheless, poorly designed jobs still exist (Parker et al., 2019) and managers choices regarding work design can potentially play an important role. Consequently, the aim of this research is to understand how managers decisions regarding work design are influenced.
To make this case study manageable within the timeframe the focus will specifically be on the knowledge and opportunity that influence managers’ work design behavior. If we can understand how these two factors influence managers’ work design behavior, then we can put in place measures that contribute and help to achieve better quality work for employees (Parker et al., 2019). What is missing in academia is insight in the complex ways in which individual differences between managers moderate the path of work design. This case study will therefore specifically focus on managers’ knowledge and perceived opportunity that influences their work design behavior and how in turn this affects work design outcomes for employees. Influences on work design generated by SMT itself fall outside the scope of this research. Therefore, the following research question arises:
“How do the knowledge and opportunity of managers influence their work design behavior, while being involved in the implementation of Smart Manufacturing Technology?”
Parker et al., (2019) state that there will be merit in understanding how managers consider work design and what sorts of work experience, training, or other opportunities might influence their work design behavior. Therefore, the theoretical contribution of this research paper is to generate insights in the knowledge and the opportunity that influences managers’ work design behavior. The practical contribution of this research paper is that it will provide actions that managers or organizations can use to improve work design. This is relevant since good work design leads to motivated personnel and better performance (Parker & Wall, 2006).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Smart Manufacturing TechnologyAs stated in the introduction Smart manufacturing (SM) refers to the pervasive implementation of networked, and information-based technologies throughout the manufacturing enterprize (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). Hirsch-Kreinsen (2016) explains that SM can lead to a techno-centered automation or complementarity automation. Techno-techno-centered automation causes replacement of work functions by automatic installations and the tasks that remain for workers are those that can be automated only with difficulty or not at all and are generally surveillance tasks. Complementary automation, also referred to as human-centered automation, can be described as the allocation of tasks between humans and machines which should satisfy a functional capability of the total system. This kind of automation identifies the specific strengths and weaknesses of both human labor and technical automation (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016), which suggests that machines and employees work together. Logically, the two different ways of automation may result in various work designs.
Managers can, by using their authority, influence what kind of technology will be used and how this technology will be implemented (Buchanan, 1982; Waschull et al., 2020). This research will only focus on the latter. Since the choice for a certain technology already had been made before the implementation phase started, the following statement of Waschull et al., (2020) is applicable. Namely that, technology constrains rather than determines managers’ work design behavior (Waschull et al., 2020).
Work Design Behavior
implementation of SMT (Waschull et al., 2020). Therefore, these three job characteristics will be briefly explained.
- Job complexity refers to the extent to which the tasks on a job are complex and difficult to perform. Complex tasks require the use of a number of high-level skills and are therefore more mentally demanding and challenging(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). - Skill variety reflects the extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety of
different skills to complete the work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
- Job autonomy refers to actual freedom of choice and discretion in one’s job (Hackman & Oldham 1976).
Since previous research showed the positive effects of enriched work designs for individual and organizational outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007) and the fact that managers have shown to considerably affect the work designs of employees in the factory with often varying outcomes (Waschull et al., 2019) it is important that managers aim to enrich jobs of their subordinates. Parker (2014) states that job enrichment can be achieved through increasing employees’ autonomy over the planning, control, and execution of their work and is characterized by a high level of skill variety, job complexity, and job autonomy, resulting in work with higher mental demands. Absence of these characteristics result in simplified jobs in which mental work is allocated to engineers and managers ((Parker, 2014; Turner & Lawrence, 1965) and employees have to perform simple, specialized, repeated manual activities (Cordery & Parker, 2012). From this it can be concluded that managers work design behavior can result in enriched or simplified work design and that managers can increase organizational performance by making the right decisions regarding work design.
Influences on Managers’ Work Design Behavior
Knowledge
Knowledge can be either implicit or explicit. Implicit knowledge reflects learning processes that are not necessarily conscious and that can occur quite automatically as a result of experience (Reber, 1976). Knowledge about work design gained through training and education is known as explicit knowledge (Parker et al., 2019). Evidence suggests that possessing knowledge about work design theories e.g. motivational and stress-related theories design influences work design behaviors (Parker et al., 2019).
Practical knowledge gained through work experience is an important factor for developing enriched work design as it is needed in order to translate explicit knowledge into improved work design (Parker et al., 2019). This implies that poor work design can still arise if managers who have theoretical (explicit) knowledge about work design lack the experience (implicit knowledge) to implement this theoretical knowledge (Parker et al., 2019).
Opportunity
People’s work design behavior is constrained or enabled by “opportunity” factors. Regardless of managers’ knowledge about (enriched) work design they can only apply their knowledge if there is an opportunity in the context. Opportunity is defined as “the particular configuration of the field of forces 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). So, managers can only apply their knowledge if opportunity enables them in that situation. Formal authority is therefore closely related to opportunity as decisions about work organization are typically made by those in positions of formal authority (Parker, 2017).
Linking the concepts
METHOD SECTION
Research DesignTo answer the research question a case study will be conducted. Yin (1981) defines a case study as “An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidences are used.” In accordance with Yins definition, multiple sources of evidences will be used. Hence, this research is referred to as a multiple case study. Multiple-case studies typically provide a stronger base for theory building (Yin, 1994). The theory is better grounded, more accurate, and more generalizable (Eisenhardt, Graebner, 2007).
The aim of this research is to create a better understanding of managers’ work design behavior. Managers’ work design behavior is therefore the unit of analysis. A qualitative research design is suitable to collect the required data as is underlined by the following statement: “The main objective of qualitative research is to create a methodology for approaching, understanding, analyzing and explaining management phenomena at a social or company level” (Delattre, et al., 2009, p. 33).
Research Setting
TABLE 1 - Case information Organization W X Y Z Type Dairy manufacturer Manufacturer of healthcare equipment
Water producer Production company
Market B2B/B2C B2B B2B/B2C B2B
Industry FMCG* FMCG
Number of
employees in 2020
24.000 220 200 50
Size Large Medium Medium Small
Implemented SMT ERP** & MES***
Smart sensors Data warehouse system
ERP & MES Interviewee 1 Manager Logistics (Org. W1) HR-manager (Org. X1) Sector Manager (Org. Y1) Manufacturing Engineer (Org. Z1) Interviewee 2 Operations Manager (Org. W2) Production Engineer (Org. X2) Head of Technology (Org. Y2) Team Leader Operations (Org. Z2) * Fast-Moving Consumer Goods. **Enterprise Resource Planning. ***Manufacturing
Execution System
Data Collection
the researcher himself, who conducted the interviews at organization W. Data was collected between 01-04-2020 and 17-04-2020.
The other students conducted the interviews with the interviewees shown in Table 1, resulting in a in a total of eight cases. Each interview took about an hour and was either conducted via face-to-face contact at the manufacturing location or with the use of a digital platform like Skype of Microsoft Teams. With the consent of the interviewee the semi-structured interviews were voice recorded and afterwards transcribed. After transcribing the recordings, the interviewees were asked to confirm whether the transcription represented the interviewees answers accurately. All organizations and interviewees where anonymized.
Data Analysis
After appropriate cases were selected, the interviews were analyzed following the three steps suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994): data reduction, data display and conclusion. The first step to reduce the data was to load it in a qualitative data analysis software tool called Atlas.ti. The interviews were read multiple times and sentences that where relevant to answer the research question where highlighted (first-order coding), hereby reducing the data to quotes or paragraphs. Beforehand, a coding tree was constructed based on the theoretical background. Coding, according to Saldaña (2009, 10) allows the researcher ‘to organize and group similarly coded data into categories or “families” because they share some characteristic – the beginning of a pattern’ (McCarthy & Milner, 2020). The second step in reducing the data was therefore to label the segments of information with codes (second-order coding), hereby linking the first-order codes with one of the main concepts e.g. work design behavior or influences on work design behavior. This process resulted in 42 codes. In the third step overlapping and redundant codes were reduced. This iterative process resulted in the 14 distinctive codes that are presented in the coding tree in Appendix B.
FINDINGS
This chapter will present the most important findings per case, followed by a cross-case analysis where the within-case analysis will be compared. In accordance with the research question, each within case analysis is structured according to the concepts knowledge, opportunity work design behavior and work design outcomes. Changes in work design outcomes will be used to describe managers’ work design behavior. After each finding, reference is made to the quote from which the findings are derived, see Appendix D.
Case Org. W1 – Manager Logistics
In terms of knowledge the Manager Logistics has considerable implicit knowledge. She has 14,5 years of experience within the organization, has held various management positions and was involved in several implementations of SMTs. The manager did not gain explicit knowledge about work design through training or education nor did she think it was important, valuing implicit knowledge over explicit knowledge (quotations 1.1 – 1.3). This managers’ formal authority came with the opportunity to design employees’ work. However, the data showed that the opportunity to design work was constrained by Head Quarters’ choice on technology (quotations 1.4 –1.5). The managers values employee involvement during the implementation process, but when it comes to decision making the manager does not consider job enrichment. Work design behavior reflects a constant focus on efficiency in terms of generated output (quotations 1.6 – 1.9). Within the constraining limits which the technology entails and the focus on efficiency the manager tries to enrich work slightly by increasing employees’ skill variety and job autonomy (quotations 1.10 –1.11).
Lastly, the manager pointed out that due to the efficiency increase she considered the implementation to be a success.
Case Org. W2 – Operations Managers
This manager had a span of control of 126 employees. Therefore, her formal authority enabled her to influence employees’ work design directly or indirectly. A restricted template and finance were the main constraining factors in designing employees work (quotations 2.4 – 2.6). The managers decided not to involve employees during the implementation phase, only in the testing phase. Due to a focus on efficiency the manager made some decisions that where unpopular amongst employees (quotations 2.7 – 2.11), resulting in a decrease in job autonomy. On the other hand, the manager tried to make work more interesting by applying job rotation, but again, employees did not like this because they feel they lose a sense of ownership
(quotations 2.12 – 2.14). Overall, also this manager considers the implementation to be a
success.
Case Org. X1 – Human Resource Manager
The HR-Managers’ explicit knowledge is high. Work design was part of her education and she knows work design theories. Having 25 years of experience as a advisor and later HR-manager caused high implicit knowledge as well (quotations 3.1 – 3.2).
This manager only had the opportunity to indirectly influence employees’ work design (e.g. employee development or providing talent programs) because she was not involved in the implementation process. The manager had no direct impact on work design as implementation was an engineering matter (quotations 3.3 – 3.7). The human aspect was not considered during the implementation. According to the manager this was partly due to her not being involved but also due to the fact that work design was focused on technology. Technology therefore constrained work design. The HR-Managers’ own work design behavior is human centered. Valuing the fact that satisfied employees are more motivated and will deliver better results
(quotations 3.8 – 3.10). The managers’ work design behavior is not reflected in employees’
work design because she was not involved in the implementation process. Nevertheless, the manager does acknowledge that the implementation of the SMT improved employees work design as it improves occupational health and safety points (quotations 3.11 – 3.12).
Case Org. X2 – Production Engineer
The Production Engineer was part of the implementation team which enabled him to design employees work. Constraining factors were budget and the obligation to design work in such a way, so quality was ensured in order to (legally) sell their products (quotations 4.5 – 4.8). A focus on efficiency was reflected in the engineers’ work design behavior. Machine functionality was always considered first. Job enrichment or employee wellbeing was considered second. Employees were being trained to match the machines operating needs
(quotations 4.9 – 4.13). Different skills were therefore needed to operate the machine. Job
autonomy decreased due to the strict standard operating procedures (SOPs) that came along with the implementation of the SMT. In order to ensure quality, work is designed as simple as possible. Lastly, the manager considered the implementation to be a success because the throughput time went down significantly (quotations 4.14 – 4.19).
Case Org. Y1 – Sector Manager
Only recently this manager gained some explicit knowledge about work design through a leadership development program, so explicit knowledge is relatively low. Previously there was no explicit knowledge gained through education or training. The manager does acknowledge the importance of explicit knowledge as he tried to read and learn about work design. Implicit knowledge is also relatively low. The manager does have experience with the implementation of SM projects, but the human side was not taken into account during the implementation of these projects (quotations 5.1 – 5.5). Opportunity to design work was somewhat constrained because of the legal requirements that drinking water has to meet. Other than that, the manager had some authority to make decisions but sparring sessions with the Head of Technology and the HR-manager mainly guided his decisions. (quotations 5.6 – 5.7). The managers’ work design behavior shows high employee involvement. He had the authority to make decisions himself but his attitude towards work design was to do it together with the employees
(quotations 5.8 – 5.11). This behavior results in giving the employee a high degree of autonomy
(quotations 5.12 – 5.14).
Case Org. Y2 – Head of Technology
6.1 – 6.7). This manager has the formal authority/opportunity to influence work design of
employees, but he mainly focuses on budget and lets his team do the proposals regarding job design (quotations 6.8 – 6.9). In terms of work design behavior two things stand out. On the one hand, the manager lets employees participate during the implementation process and by letting them make their own decisions on how to run the project. On the other hand, the manager makes decisions with a technical focus that ensures operational continuity. Outsourcing repetitive activities originates from a need to increase efficiency, not so much to enrich work (quotations 6.10 – 6.13). This work design behavior resulted in giving employees job autonomy to design their own work and where needed operators where being facilitated so they were able to work with the new technology. This manager considered the implementation to be successful because of an efficiency increase in his department (quotations 6.14 – 6.17).
Case Org. Z1 – Manufacturing Engineer
The data gave little insight into the managers’ knowledge, only that he gained some explicit knowledge though education (quotation 7.1). The Manufacturing Engineer had great influence on designing work for employees by designing the working methods (quotations 7.2 – 7.4). Work design behavior reflected a focus on mistake proof working methods with no regard for employee wellbeing (quotations 7.5 – 7.7). Working methods were designed in such a way that operators didn’t have to think for themselves, every step was fixed in SOPs. Therefore, giving the employee as little autonomy as possible to ensure mistake proof operations. This made staff easily replaceable (quotations 7.8 – 7.10).
Case Org. Z2 – Team Leader Operations
Cross-case Analysis
By conducting the cross-case analysis it stood out that managers who worked at the same organization showed similar work design behaviors. The HR-manager being the exception. Both managers working at organization W designed work in such a wat that efficiency was ensured, considerations to enrich work came second. This often led to a decrease in job autonomy and job complexity. As far as the technology and the focus on efficiency allowed it, these managers tried to enrich work by applying job rotation and slightly increasing job autonomy in other aspects of employees’ work. Their opportunity to design work enabled them to put measures in place to meet the efficiency objectives, therefore influencing their work design behavior. Knowledge appeared to be irrelevant. The same could be stated for case X2, in order to achieve efficiency, this manager used his opportunity to design work as simple as possible, therefore decreasing employees’ job autonomy. Knowledge about work design was not abundant, nor was it thought of as important, therefore it did not influence work design behavior. The Manager Logistics, Operations Manager, and the Production Engineer (W1, W2, X2) only let opportunity influence their work design behavior predominantly resulting in a decrease of job autonomy and job complexity.
The managers of organization Y also showed similarities in work design behavior, valuing employee involvement during the implementation phase. Bot managers had the opportunity to make decisions on their own, but their approach was to involve employees and design work with them. This resulted in an increase of employees’ job autonomy. Although there is a difference in explicit knowledge between the managers, they both acknowledge the importance of having explicit knowledge. Both knowledge and opportunity influenced these managers work design behavior, resulting in high job autonomy for employees.
Although the HR-Manager was not involved in the implementation process, some interesting insights were gained. The HR-Manager had considerable explicit and implicit knowledge about work design and was the only manager who consciously approached work design from a human perspective. If given the opportunity to design work, she would use her knowledge to enrich jobs.
(X1, Y1, Y2) had explicit knowledge about work design and this knowledge influenced their works design behavior, resulting in considering job enrichment.
Although the cases form organization X gave little insight into the knowledge and opportunities of these managers, some interesting insights were gained about their work design behavior and how this affected work design outcomes. This organization stood out because of its uniqueness. The managers designed work in such a simplified way so they could hire staff with very little skills, resulting in staff that was easily replaceable. The managers showed almost no consideration to enrich work or employee wellbeing, focusing strictly on giving employees as little job autonomy as possible to ensure quality.
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION
In all cases SMT was implemented to increase organizational performance by increasing cost efficiency. The findings showed that managers (cases W1, W2, X2, Z1, Z2) who predominantly focused on efficiency designed less enriched work. This is in line with the research of Parker et al., (2017) who suggest that efficiency goals motivate managers to design less enriched work. Campion & Stevens (1991), showed that managers designed more enriched work after they had received training in work design theories. The findings form cases X1, Y1, Y2 confirm this statement, showing that managers who have explicit knowledge, gained through training or education, tend to involve employees during the implementation process, giving them more job autonomy and therefore designing enriched work. The findings from case W2 contradict this statement. This manager had explicit knowledge but rather used it to design deskilled work in order to increase efficiency. This can be explained by the fact that some managers consider efficiency and skill utilization rather than job satisfaction when redesigning work (Campion & Stevens, 1991)
further research is needed to understand whether and when certain employees have a desire for enriched work.
Lastly, almost all managers considered the implementation to be a success. Begging the question how success is perceived. The implementation of SMT mostly resulted in job simplification, so in term of job enrichment or employee wellbeing it could be argued whether the implementation was really as successful as managers state it was.
Answering the research question, the findings show that work design behavior of managers who tend to design enriched work are both influenced by their (explicit knowledge) as well as their opportunity. Managers who do not have explicit knowledge and have a focus on efficiency tend to design simplified work with less job autonomy, only letting opportunity influence their work design behavior.
Implications
This research adds to the understanding how managers’ work design behavior is influenced by opportunity as well as individual attributes, in particular knowledge. Based on the result new questions arise. In accordance with Parker & Grote (2020) the findings of this research show that managers do not tend to design enriched work for others and even have a tendency to design more deskilled work.
Future research is needed to understand why managers with the opportunity to design other employees work often lack explicit knowledge about work design, and whether and when certain employees have a desire for enriched work and how they perceive enriched work. This research comes with several practical implications. The results showed that managers need to be better educated in work design theories in order to adapt technology to better suit employees. In order to design enriched work, it is advised to involve employees from the HR-department during the design or implementation phase as they generally have more explicit knowledge. This can enhance a successful implementation.
Limitations
REFERENCES
Campion, M. A., & Stevens, M. J. (1991). Neglected questions in job design: How people design jobs, task-job predictability, and influence of training. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6(2), 169-191.
Chiarello, F., Trivelli, L., Bonaccorsi, A., Fantoni, G., 2018. Extracting and mapping industry 4.0 technologies using wikipedia. Comput. Ind. 100, 244–257.
Coovert, M.D., & Thompson, L.F. (2013). Toward a synergistic relationship between psychology and technology. In M.D. Coovert & L.F. Thompson (Eds). The psychology of workplace technology (pp. 25–42). New York: Routledge.
Cordery, J. & Parker, S., 2012. Work Design: Creating Jobs and Roles That Promote
Individual Effectiveness. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Volume 1. 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 (3/4): 33-50.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16:250–79
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M., & De Lacey, S. 2016. Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them. Human Reproduction, 31(3): 498–501.
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, 92, 1332–1356.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., 2013. Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry. Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Acatech, Forschungsunion.
Kemp, N. J., & Clegg, C. W. 1987. Information technology and job design: A case study on computerized numerically controlled machine tool working. Behaviour & Information Technology,6:109–124.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E.D.F.R., Ramos, L.F.P., 2017. Past, present and future of Industry 4.0-a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (12), 3609–3629.
McCarthy, G., & Milner, J. (2020). Ability, motivation and opportunity: managerial coaching in practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(1), 149–170.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321-1339.
Parker, S. K., Andrei, D. M., & Broeck, A. V. (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., Broeck, A. V., & 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. doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0054
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., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420. Parker, S., & Wall, T. (2006). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Sage Publ.
Reber, A. S. (1976). Implicit learning of synthetic language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2, 88–94.
Saldaña J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, London.
Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Harvard University. van den Beukel, A. L., & Molleman, E. (2002). Too little, too much Downsides of multi- functionality in team-based work. Personnel Review, 31(4), 482–494.
Waschull, S., Bokhorst, J. A. C., Molleman, E., & Wortmann, J. C. (2019). Industrial work in the context of Industry 4.0: an in-depth case study on the interplay of digital technologies and work design. Working paper
Waschull, S., Bokhorst, J., Molleman, E., & Wortmann, J. (2020). Work design in future industrial production: Transforming towards cyber-physical systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 139, 105679.
Wood, S. (Ed.).1982. The degradation of work? Skill, deskilling and the labour process. London, UK: Hutchinson.
APPENDIX A – Interview Script
Section 1: Background information1. What is your role in the company, and your responsibilities? 2. What is your previous working experience?
3. Could you briefly describe your company in terms of: • Industry
• Products and services
• Types of market served (B2B/B2C) • Number of employees
• Type of production processes
4. What study have you followed/completed?
5. How do you characterize the overall organizational culture and manager-employee interaction inside the company?
Section 2: Information on the smart manufacturing project
1. Could you describe the smart manufacturing project/program, and the implemented technologies?
2. What were the main project activities?
3. *What is/was your role, and your daily tasks in the project?
4. Who else is/was involved in the design or implementation, what are/were their roles? Who has/had what responsibility?
5. Have you had any previous training and experience regarding the implementation of such technologies?
6. What was the main reason for the choice of the technologies adopted/implemented? 2.4. Which were/are the main objectives and motivations for the project?
2.7. Do/did you have all the resources necessary to make the project a success?
Section 3: Unwrapping mindset and work design behavior
3.1. How do you judge a good design and/or implementation of the (smart manufacturing) technology?
3.2. What are the ultimate criteria for success (of the implementation)? How do you meet these? (you could take each criterion in turn and probe how its achieved to see if work design
is mentioned)
3. To ensure the technology helps enhance productivity, what else needs to be in place, beyond technology that works?
3.4. What is your general ‘vision’ or perspective on the role of humans in the factory? 3.5. What ‘human’ considerations have you made in the project?
3.6. What have you done to take into account the perspective of employees, can you name examples?
3.7. Who was responsible for the consideration of human factors (their work, tasks, skills) during the project?
3.8. Have you involved the user of the new technology in the development/implementation project of the new technology, how?
3.9.a Questions to ask in case of designers of a technology: What considerations have you made about how the technology will be used in the work? What processes do you have for thinking about how the system will actually work when implemented?
3.9.b Question to ask in case of implementors of a technology: What role/staffing issues does the new technology give rise to? What skill requirements? Will people work in the same way as now? If not, what will be different?
3.10. What functions do you/did you allocate to a person rather than a machine/software? How do you make these decisions?
3.11. What human considerations have you made/ are you making during this project to ensure engaged and motivated workers? What are you doing to ensure maximum productivity?
Section 4: Work design changes
4.1. What employee group was/is most affected by the implementation?
When the discussed technology is not yet implemented then ask:
4.2. When the technology is finally in place, how might their work design change?
Per change, inquire about the underlying motive for the change: -why did it change?
4.3. Will people work in the same teams in the same roles/ different? 4.4. If more detail is needed, ask more specific questions:
Will levels of autonomy change? What control will the person have relative to the machine? Will the person get feedback from the machine/system?
Will job demands change?
Will the person need to develop new skills?
What about social interaction, will people interact more or less with others?
Only ask when the discussed technology is already implemented:
4.5. How did the work design change of X due to the implementation of the technology?
Per change, inquire about the underlying motive for the change: -why did it change?
4.6. Do people work in the same teams, and in the same roles or different ones? 4.7. Were any of these changes unexpected?
4.8. If more detail is needed, ask more specific questions:
Will levels of autonomy change? What control will the person have relative to the machine? Will the person get feedback from the machine/system?
Will job demand change?
Section 5: Individual influences
5.1 What is your explicit knowledge about work design? (knowledge about work design theories like the JCM-model)
• Have you heard about work design theories and the relation to job satisfaction, if so what have you learnt about it?
• Have you learned about it during your study, or your work?
• Have you had training in the implementation of smart technologies and work design, if so what kind of training?
• Do you think it is important to know more about these theories? Why?
• Do you think there should be more / less attention given to work design? Why? (e.g. at work / higher education)
What is your implicit knowledge about work design? (knowledge about how to implement good work design in practice)
• What is your experience with redesigning work?
• What did you learn from redesigning work and the effect on the motivation of employees?
• Do you think you have enough experience to design enriched work? Why? • Are there any obstacles that make it hard for you to learn how to conduct enriched
work in practice?
• What is necessary for you in order to gain better knowledge about work design in practice?
Opportunity to design work
• With regard to the implementation to this technology, were there any constraints or enablers that affected the way that you designed work?
• How did your authority influence the way that you designed work? (e.g. did you have the authority to change the job characteristics of some jobs or weren’t you able to do this because of your role in the organization?)
• Did other departments, like the HR department, support enriched work design? Did this affect your work design decisions?
• Were there departments / employees involved that did not support enriched work design? Did this affect your work design behavior?
• Are there any factors that did influence the way that you designed work? (e.g. the current labor market, economic situation, culture)
Wrapping up the interview
6.1. Do you consider the implementation a success and why? 6.2. What were negative outcomes of the project?
APPENDIX B – Coding Tree
# Concepts and
variables # Second-order codes Description A Work design
behavior
A1 Employee involvement
Involvement of employees during the implementation of the technology
A2 Consideration to
simplify jobs
Purposefully implementing SMT in such a way that a change in work design
outcomes results in job simplification
A3 Consideration to
enrich jobs
Purposefully implementing SMT in such a way that a change in work design
outcomes results in job enrichment
A4 Work design
behavior The decisions of managers related to designing someones job B Influences on
work design behavior
B1 Explicit
knowledge Knowledge about work design gained through training and education
B2 Educational
background Educatinal background in general. Not necessarily focussed on work design.
B3 Implicit
knowledge
Implicit knowledge reflects learning processes that are not necessarily conscious and that can occur quite automatically as a result of experience B4 Opportunity The particular configuration of the field of
forces 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
B5 Formal authority Position within the company that enables managers' decision-making processes regarding work design
B6 Contextual
influences Contextual influences are made up out of higher-level external, organizational, local context and individual influence
C Work design outcomes
C1 Job autonomy The actual freedom of choice and discretion in one’s job
C2 Job complexity The extent to which the tasks on a job are complex and difficult to perform
C3 Skill variety The extent to which a job requires an individual to use a variety of different skills to complete the work
C4 Evaluation
Function Knowledge Opportunity Work design behavior Work design outcomes
Manager Logistics (1)
“Roughly speaking, it does not add value to my work” (1.1)
“I don’t get that form theory, but those are things you gain from experience” (1.2) “So as far as models are concerned, I didn't think of anything to put it that way. It's more like using your common sense” (1.3)
“The template was already fixed and only the parameters could be changed” (1.4)
“Only the parameters could be altered” (1.5)
“And then people may or may not be happy about it. "So be it," to put it frankly” (1.6) “So, it's not necessarily to see if it's still interesting for someone or not. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way” (1.7)
“That is, or should be, in all managerial positions. That you constantly want to be more efficient and improve” (1.8)
"It was just logical and more efficient to do it in another department." (1.9)
“We then mixed all the tasks a bit so that it became a bit more interesting for the people themselves” (1.10)
“That you want to create support so that they roll out the change themselves in the department” (1.11)
Manager Operations (2)
“I did do something with during my studies, but I haven't opened the books since. Once in a while I read an article about it if I want some background” (2.1) Now I don’t do much with it anymore, but as a CI manager you went to a new boot camp every three, four months. For the subjects that you had to train at that time to your people that you were going to work with” (2.2)
“So, I went to (company name) as a project manager for new product development. I did Business development in China for infant nutrition and then became continuous improvement manager for the site in (other location). There I set up the whole work design and continuous improvement for (other location) and then started here as production manager” (2.3)
“Responsible for a team of 126 people who together produce the full volumes of (company name)” (2.4)
“I think the main limitation has been the template itself” (2.5) “Well, one of the most important decisions in designing the work is the available funding” (2.6)
“And maybe if I bring this in, I can eliminate this role completely. Then you're really line-balancing on people” (2.7)
“And have we done a confirmation to see how we can organize our organization as efficiently as possible” (2.8)
“But from the test phase onwards, there were ten that I had to make free from production” (2.9)
“How am I going to organize my people to get the work done as efficiently as possible?” (2.10) “We made a separation between Field and Panel to get more focus on the panel work. So actually, your process control of the towers. We wanted to make the control of the towers more focused. So, we appointed three process managers. who are always in the control room
“Interviewer: In this sense you also get more social control,
social interaction ...
Interviewed: No, less” (2.12) “One of the things that goes with it is all-rounder ship. So that also means that they can be used in rotation (2.13)
as well. People hated the fact that we split them up. Because they're no longer allowed to sit behind the panel” (2.11)
HR-Manager (3)
“In that sense, I do know the important theories” (3.1)
“I've always been in similar roles, I started 25 years ago in the HR profession as an HR consultant, moved on to become an HR manager within the Netherlands and then for European branches” (3.2)
“The choice of technology is really an engineering matter” (3.3) “No, I wasn't involved in this. This was a project initiated and implemented by the engineers” (3.4)
“Think of employee development, absenteeism, hiring policy, dismissal policy, talent programs, you name it. Anything you can think of around people in the organization that falls under my responsibility” (3.5)
“The way we have now filled out our competence matrix is very much geared to the technology we had” (3.6)
“This is because it has to be completed from a very technical background.” (3.7)
“I don't think the human aspect has been included in this process, so must definitely catch up here” (3.8)
“I'm approaching that from the human factor” (3.9)
“If the employee is satisfied, he is more motivated and will deliver better results. Good organization of work is therefore important for the employee as an organization” (3.10)
“They may not have set any goals for humans, but the work has certainly improved for them as well” (3.11)
“From an occupational health and safety point of view, this was a bad job, so I can only applaud the fact that there is now a device that can take over this work and that the employees are going to focus on other tasks” (3.12)
Production Engineer (4)
“I don't have any real work experience in the sector” (4.1)
“No, exactly. I didn't have any experience” (4.2)
“Production itself I have no experience for
“So, money is often the main problem if you want to make a change” (4.5)
“No in principle we were responsible for the entire project” (4.6)
“So, there is a lot of consultation with the people who know the technique or have a good idea for the technique” (4.9)
“Here, the interaction of man and machine may be put in second place. Man has to learn to work with the machine, it is ultimately about what the
“This will be done more with the machines, computer skills will be more useful and experience with working with systems will be gained” (4.14)
“Experience is very important for this, you can have a lot of theoretical knowledge, but experience is a very important factor” (4.4)
“Now I am in the Production Engineering team where everything revolves around the step from engineering to production. So, there I am much involved in the design and “implementation and have learned more about what to do for a successful implementation” (4.4)
“It is the task of the engineers to make new equipment workable for production workers” (4.7)
“Yes, sometimes this is very difficult because a change does not always benefit the production staff themselves. This is often about quality issues. We always have to comply with certain quality aspects in order to be able to sell it as a medical product” (4.8)
“The choice for this machine was made on the basis of the machine. The staff was not taken into account. That way it was not really taken into account” (4.11)
“The main goal is to increase the production speed so that we can start upscaling. For this purpose, the purchase of this machine is definitely a must. In addition, we want to make the process more efficient by reducing the number of outages and shortening the turnaround time” (4.12)
“Functionality comes first. We look at how we can produce the product in the best possible way, with good efficiency. Then we look at whether there is enough variation in the tasks within production and how we deal with this” (4.13)
that only someone has to be there for inspection. It is therefore no longer necessary to carry out the work manually” (4.15)
“We also try to make the operations as simple as possible for the production staff” (4.16)
“Yeah, because we're
developing medical devices, that's all down to the last detail. Production staff must work according to work instructions. They're not allowed to do anything if they're not officially trained to do so” (4.17)
“For each product there is a certain process that has to be completed in sequence. The employees have no choice in which order, when they start a product, they have to finish it” (4.18)
“Yes, if you just look at the throughput time of the process that has gone from an hour to a quarter of an hour, that is certainly a success” (4.19) Sector
Manager (5)
“So now, look what our company has done now, we have made a leadership development plan for all managers and so
“Drinking water is water that must meet legal requirements” (5.6)
“Yes of course we do get signals like ‘we are not yet sufficiently involved in certain matters’,
together you do that, and a lot of attention is paid to these kinds of subjects. So how do you enthuse your employees, how are you going to make sure they are in the right place, how would you move on?” (5.1) “Just, this is your engineering training, and this is it. So, you were just dumped into society without any knowledge of it” (5.2) “Yes, I certainly had those kinds of projects, but I wasn't aware of them at the time” (5.3)
“I see a lot of things, but I haven't read any theories about it like I say in your script. I didn't actually use that, I didn't even know it existed” (5.4)
“And of course, I read a lot about how people think and what motivates them. So, I try to acquire that kind of knowledge as well” (5.5)
“Look of course I have the authority to do things and I make my own choices but yes in the end I have been sparring a lot with the Head of Technology and an HR consultant about how to do this now, what are we going to do what is needed” (5.7)
well we very well do value signals like that” (5.8)
I've deliberately spent a lot of time involving people in the implementation” (5.9)
“Specifically, for data warehouse, we often try to bring people along with what we see and whether they see what we see and what contribution they can make to that” (5.10) “And I do have the authority to do that, but that's just not how it works in practice, if you do things on your own” (5.11)
given them a bit of direction now” (5.12)
“So, you make them owner of the subject and you ask them how you see yourself in the next 5 years with regard to the subject. So, you give them their ownership” (5.13)
“But I think you can actually leave a lot to the colleagues themselves, they know quite a bit about what to do and what I do once in a while is a little sparring of goh how would I do this how would you think about it” (5.14)
Head of Technology
(6)
“I did civil engineering. After that I did all kinds of courses in the field of soil research and remediation, management training and I did another MBA” (6.1)
“Yeah, you'll get that during the MBA” (6.2)
“Yes, I always find that interesting. So, in that sense I keep on developing myself” (6.3)
“I'm now Head of Technology and Support. So, I have maintenance engineers in my team, process engineers, people who do the
process automation, water
distribution” (6.8)
“No, the project group makes proposals. But like when it comes to budget and things like that, I do have an influence on that” (6.9)
“But we deliberately outsourced that because it is a lot of very repetitive work” (6.10)
“So very technically oriented and very focused on ensuring the continuity of drinking water” (6.11)
“So, if I put people in their power because they are allowed to run a project themselves or think of how to set up Tableau, then you just see. I have one person in the department who is very
“So, what we're doing right now is, let's call the operators, to help them make use of this data” (6.14)
“I facilitated the first calls, so to speak, and then I left it with the team” (6.15)
“I recently took a two-day leadership course because I'm also active abroad” 6.4)
“There you also get all kinds of aspects of the importance of the good flow, how do you take your employees along with you. So that's something that's getting more and more attention anyway” (6.5)
“I did implement major projects. In the period that I was director, we automated the entire operational management” (6.6) “I experienced an SAP implementation at Vitens” (6.7)
good at that and you notice that they show things that they couldn't show otherwise” (6.12) “No, but that's usually more like I let the employees participate very much and then you automatically get feedback and then you come to a good concept” (6.13)
“It's more efficient for my department. So, we can come in faster to answer questions and look ahead” (6.17)
Manufacturing Engineer (7)
“BSc Industrial Engineering and
Management, MSc Supply Chain” (7.1)
“So, we as engineers often sit down together and then we determine yes this method of working is not useful or could be better” (7.2)
“And I'm going to adjust the PLM system so that procurement also has enough information and so does our operations manager” (7.3)
“I decide that it has to be done in 20 minutes and that 1 operator is needed for that and, just arrange it” (7.4)
“Then we just adjust it together with that operator and only when things are going well will the operators come on the line” (7.5) “But the most important thing for me is that they can't make mistakes. That's the most important thing for me, how they treat each other, I have nothing to do with that” (7.5)
“What we are doing is actually to make it so clear in PLM that when an operator is working on MES that is actually the production that he has no questions, that everything is clear that he knows what color to grab, what part to grab, that he doesn't grab the wrong part, that he doesn't screw it too hard and things like that” (7.6)
“Yes, that's right, the operator has a screen in front of him and in order to carry out every important step he has to round it off to be allowed to continue” (7.8)
“I am a Manufacturing Engineer, my job is to design the lines on the shop floor and then prepare everything so that the operators get all the instructions with pictures, what material to use, how to use it and how much torque to put on and screw, which screw to use, which color part” (7.7)
Team Leader Operations (8)
“Yeah, but I don't look at it anymore. I think some of it's stuck in the back of your mind and you're taking it with you” (8.1)
“Well, I just need to formalize it and I certainly have a certain influence on it” (8.2)
“So, we hope that the digital backbone will also make it easier for the operator to learn things in the MES” (8.3)
“Yes I think that people don't want to have autonomy yet, well they think it's fine, some people think it's fine as it goes and they are used, for example from the Philips time, to get a work instruction and just get busy and that's the end of it for some” (8.4)
“Three is actually that you are on the shop floor (I'm just saying it very weird) but that anyone with minimal knowledge can put on a work cell and who can carry out that task, that's important. It's just important that someone stands at a work cell, that he sees the processes written out, you have to do this, you have to do this and you have to do it this way and that you can teach people very quickly, that it doesn't become a burden for them to look at the screen and press on the next task, but more that it really becomes a good tool for the support” (8.5)
