Page | 0
The influence of personality on
managerial work design behaviour
The role of managers in Industry 4.0
J.G.H. Rougoor
University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Faculty of Economics and Business
Pre-MSc Technology and Operations Management
22-06-2020
Geulstraat 3 9725CH Groningen 0031 657 422 729 J.g.h.rougoor@student.rug.nl Student number: S4182359 AbstractPurpose: This paper aims to explore the influence of personality on the work design behaviour
of managerial decision-makers during the implementation of Smart manufacturing technologies. Design/methodology: A case study analysis of six manager-technology implementation relationship at three different companies. Findings: Personality can influence the work design behaviour of managers in multiple ways, depending on the applicable personality traits. Research limitations/ implications: The available data was limited and it is recommended to continue this research perspective on a larger scale.
Keywords: Smart Manufacturing, Work Design, Personality, Managerial-decision making Paper Type: Research Paper
Page | 1
1. Introduction
As a consequence of the fourth industrial revolution, also called Industry 4.0, manufacturing paradigms are confronted with radical changes (Cagliano et al., 2019). The central pillar of this technological revolution is Smart Manufacturing (SM) (Frank et al., 2019), which refers to the application of networked information-based technologies (e.g. IoT, Big Data, Cloud) throughout manufacturing enterprises (Davis et al., 2012; Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). The implementation of these SM technologies has shown a powerful impact on the work design of employees (Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017). Work design refers to ‘’the content and organisation of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships and responsibilities performed by individuals and groups in work setting’’ (Cordery and Parker, 2012; Parker, 2014). Technology can substitute human tasks, which results in a change of work design by simplifying and enriching jobs (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016). However, work design is not only determined by the technology itself but also depends on various factors, as the choices managers and stakeholders make during the design and implementation of the technology (Liker, Haddad and Karlin, 1999; Parker, 2014; Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017; Waschull et al., 2019; Parker and Grote, 2020).
Despite the evidence on the benefits of well-designed jobs, poor quality work design still exists in either advanced and developing economies (Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017; Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, 2019). Besides, that employees can change their work design, the evidence is much stronger, that these work designs are created and sustained by those with formal authority, such as managers (Mumford, Campion and Morgeson, 2007; Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017). By creating a more enhanced understanding how these individuals design others’ work, also termed work design behaviour, will help to achieve and support a better quality of work design (Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, 2019).
Page | 2 and Costa, 2003). The combination of these two researches initiates that there may be a direct relationship between personality and work design behaviour. Also, Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, (2017) named personality in their framework as an direct individual influence on work design. At this moment the relationship between personality and managerial work design behaviour has not been researched yet.
The contribution of this paper is to enlarge the understanding of the influence of the antecedents the work design. This research elaborates on this by exploring the relationship between the individual influence personality and managerial work design behaviour. To execute this research, the following main research question will be answered:
How does personality influence the work design behaviour of managers in the light of smart manufacturing?
The research was done by studying multiple case studies of managers designing employees work design, during the implementation of smart manufacturing technology.
Page | 3
2. Theoretical Framework
In this section, the developed framework will be presented and explained for every aspect of the model. First, the influence of smart manufacturing technologies is explained and its characteristics. Second, the factors of the work design behaviour of managers are explained. Final, we elaborate on this by linking it to the personality antecedent.
2.1. Smart manufacturing technologies and work design
The introduction of smart manufacturing technologies can be challenging mainly due to the lack of knowledge on how these technologies need to be implemented (Frank et al., 2019). Besides the implementation of agentic and automated technical systems, the role of human work remains important (Parker and Grote, 2020). Technology can affect work design positively and negatively by influencing related job characteristics (Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017). Hereby refers work design to ‘’the content and organisation of one’s work tasks, activities, relationships and responsibilities performed by individuals and groups in work setting’’ (Cordery and Parker, 2012; Parker, 2014). Considering work design within smart technologies the job characteristics job autonomy, skill variety and job complexity are most well linked for being influenced (Waschull et al., 2019). Job autonomy can be defined as the amount of freedom and independence of an employee to perform the assigned job (Hackman et
al., 1975). Skill variety on his own is the variety of skill and capabilities needed to perform the
job (Waschull et al., 2019). Job complexity refers to the amount of information processing and mental demand of the job (Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson, 2007). As already mentioned, does not only technology affect these job characteristics, but also by the work design choices managers and stakeholder make. Managers have the formal authority to regroup and assign new tasks to man or machine (Waschull et al., 2019), which has a direct effect on the work design of employees.
2.2. Managers’ work design behaviour in Smart manufacturing
Page | 4 and technology can have both negative and positive effects on work design, due to job
simplification and job enrichment (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Parker, Van Den Broeck
and Holman, 2017; Waschull et al., 2019). First, job enrichment was intended as the increase of job motivation and satisfaction by employees (Hackman et al., 1975). Later on, Parker, (2014) elaborated on this as ‘’the increase of the employees' autonomy over the planning and execution of his work and is characterized by a high level of skill variety, job complexity and job autonomy’’. Job enrichment is important for work design because it can promote creativity, job motivation, proactivity and employee learning (Parker, 2014). Job simplification is characterized by the absence of these three job characteristics and reduces mental requisite and makes jobs more routinized (Waschull et al., 2019). Despite the evidence about the benefits of job enrichment (Parker, 2014; Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, 2019), poor quality work design still exists. Notwithstanding, the evidence that managers don’t design enriched work naturally (Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, 2019), managers use also job enrichment as a solution to solve individual employee problems without knowing the root cause of this work design problem (Hackman et al., 1975). Therefore, it is needed to enlarge the understanding of why managers make certain choices about work design and when are they intended to simplify or enrich work design.
2.3. Personality on management/leadership
To identify, why managers make certain design choice we need to look at the antecedent of the work design process. In most research work design is measured as the moderator or independent variable, while the antecedents of work design, like personality, are rarely considered (Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017; Waschull et al., 2019). The relationship between personality and management/leadership is not new to the field of research. Earlier research showed already that personality can be a good predictor for several variables as, job performance (Judge and Zapata, 2015), contextual performance (Gellatly et al., 2009), type of managerial work (Saha and Sharma, 2019) and transformational leadership (Judge and Bono, 2000). About this last variable Parker et al., 2019 cited the possible relationship between this kind of leadership style and the influence on work design behaviour. This gives us an opening in the literature of a possible direct relationship between the personality antecedent and work design behaviour.
Page | 5
al., (2002) has shown that the Big Five, conscientious, emotional stability, extraversion,
openness to experience and agreeableness, are useful traits to describe most aspects of personality concerning leadership/management. The research shows that there is enough support for the relevance and use of FFM in leadership/ management research. From the Big Five traits, Conscientiousness individuals can be described as ambitious and striving for achievement (Barrick, Mount and Li, 2013). Also, being reliable, dependable and well-organized are key aspects of conscientiousness individuals. Emotional stability, which is also labelled as its opposite neuroticism, is often related to being relaxed, calm, less depressed and the ability to handle stress (Barrick, Mount and Li, 1991). Neuroticism individuals are more anxious, insecure or moody (Judge et al., 2002). Extraversion is seen as the most important and best personality predictor of managers (Judge et al., 2000; Barrick et al., 2013). Extravert individuals tend to be, active, outgoing, assertive and sociable for meeting new people (Judge
et al., 2000). Agreeable(ness) personalities strive to cooperate harmoniously with other and
tend to be trustworthy, gentle, kind and eager to help others (Judge and Bono, 2000; Barrick, Mount and Li, 2013). Individuals who have Openness to experience tend to be creative, innovative, curious and broad-minded (Judge and Zapata, 2015). Also working with new ideas and engaging divergent thinking is the preference of these individuals.
In Figure 1 the conceptual framework of this research is shown. In this figure, the relationships between the variables are illustrated. In this conceptual model, the work design behaviour of managers is taken as a direct variable on the influenced job characteristics of the work designed. Personality acts in this case as the independent variable, which is the antecedent of the work design behaviour.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework in the context of smart manufacturing Managers work design behaviour
Job enrichment Job simplification Personality Openness Emotional stability Extraversion Conscientiousness
Agreeableness Job characteristics
Page | 6
3. Methodology
In this section, the methodology of the research is explained. A brief overview is given about the research design, case selection, data collection and data analysis.
3.1. Research design and case selection
To answer the research-question a typical-causal-multiple case study research was executed. A case study research can be defined as “An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not evident.” (Yin, 1981). This method of qualitative research is applicable for how and why questions, with a search for experience, meaning and perspective data (Hammarberg, Kirkman and De Lacey, 2016). This kind of theory building is a research strategy for creating theoretical constructs and propositions by empirical evidence of multiple cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of multiple cases creates a robust framework and more deeply ground propositions of empirical data (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). For this research, three typical cases were selected. Typical cases represent a stable cross-case relationship (Seawright and Gerring, 2008), which is in this research the implementation of smart technologies. In this multiple case study, three companies were selected. An overview of these organizations can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Case and interview details
Case Type of company Description of SM Position of interviewee
A
Wooden, plastic window frame and prefab walls manufacturer
Implementation of a full-automatic CNC wooden window frame machine line
1 Head of the technical department
2 Director (CEO)
X
A multinational
manufacturer in the food industry company
Implementation of a new production line with multiple SM technologies
1 Commissioning and start-up manager 2 Process licenser Y Multinational manufacture specialized in consumer goods Implementation of a predictive maintenance model. With the use of production data.
1 Maintenance & Production engineering manager 2 Production manager
Page | 7 function or other external influences, were out of scope for this research. The number of available cases was limited due to the use of an allocated data collection.
3.2. Data collection
For the data collection, six semi-structured interviews were conducted with two related interviewees for each selected case. The interviews were conducted by three different interviewers within the period of 27-03-2020 till 21-04-2020. Each interviewer conducted the same interview script, which was made in advance by the interviewers. Because this script was in English it needed to be translated to Dutch. This Dutch translated interview script was sent in advance to the interviewees so that they could prepare themselves for the interview. All interviews were transcribed afterwards and the transcripts were uploaded in a Google Drive folder so that every researcher/interviewer could consult the data.
3.3. Data analysis
Page | 8
4. Findings
In this section, the most important findings of the multiple case study are shown. First, for every case manager the personality and work design behaviour were formulated, supported by anecdotes. Only positive related personality traits and work design behaviours are presented. Second, similarities and difference were formulated in a cross-case analysis.
4.1. Personality and work design behaviour of the case managers
Manager A1 can be characterized by his Open personality trait. He is open to new ideas and is
also proactive in suggesting innovations.
‘’I suggest new ideas and try to optimise as much as possible’’ (MA1)
He is also extravert and agreeable to his colleagues and employees, likes to meet new people and tends to be a trust/open factor for his employees.
‘’That are the currants in the porridge of the job, I love to meet new people’’ (MA1). ‘’Everyone comes to me if they want something, have a question or even problems at home’’
(MA1).
The work design behaviour of Manager 1A has a techno-centred focus, with the optimisation of processes, but with a high degree of employee involvement and human perspective. For him, the employees must be involved in the implementation to stay motivated and driven.
‘’It is a success because I see a product that is finished with less handling and better quality’’(MA1)
‘’The more you involve the people, the better the motivation’’(MA1).
Manager A2 is also a manager high in openness to experience and agreeableness. He likes to
force innovation and also comes with new ideas.
“Often I get the reproach for going too fast in certain things, so I am very open to change and innovation’’ (MA2).
He is also trustworthy and employees come quickly to him when there is a problem.
‘’Sometimes people are coming to fast and then you need to look out that they are not impeding your work’’(MA2).
Page | 9
‘’We are more and more robotised and the physical work is becoming less important’’(MA2) ‘’It goes about the smaller things where employees influence on’’(MA2).
Despite the job simplification, as a result of the automation, he tries to design new work for the employees to fit their skills and capabilities. This can be within the implemented technology or elsewhere in the organization.
‘’I try to prevent dissatisfying jobs and think together with them what they can do within the organization’’(MA2).
Manager X1 is a more conscientious and emotional stable manager. He strives for achievement
and good results and likes to do tasks in a structured way. He is can also handle stress in a good way.
‘’We agreed, so then you need to take it all the way’’ (MX1) ‘’Yes, I can handle stress in a very good way’’(MX1)
Manager X1 is also agreeable and approachable for his employees.
‘’Yes very approachable, in such a way that I don’t can do my work for days’’(MX1)
The work design behaviour of Manager X1 is more about job simplification and does not design the employee, but more in line with the implemented technology.
‘’They may not change the settings that much, they need to do what they are asked for, they have barely autonomy’’ (MX1)
Manager X2 has a more emotionally stable and extravert personality. He searches calmly for
solutions and can handle stress in a good way. He doesn’t like to be silent and likes to meet new people, but also sometimes sorts out who can help him further.
‘’I can stay calm for a long time and keep searching for solutions’’(MX2) ‘’No I don’t sit still in a corner, sometimes I talk more than…’’ (MX2)
He also likes to think about new possibilities of innovation but is not as creative to think out of the box.
‘’I am for sure someone who likes new things, but that’s not the same as someone who is upfront with the newest innovations’’ (MX2)
Page | 10
‘’I don’t look that much at the work design changes of the operator’’ (MX2) ‘’It is important to produce with good quality and high capacity’’ (MX2)
Manager Y1 is an extravert and agreeable manager. He does not stick to the organizational
hierarchy but likes to operate through the organization.
‘’I talk the same to an operator as to the CEO’’ (MY1)
‘’The door is always open; they just tell me everything and if it is private I take them in confidence’’ (MY1)
Manager Y1 was in his previous job an innovation-manager and he likes to force innovation, but more from a managerial perspective.
‘’I am open for innovation, I am critical, I want to see ideas’’ (MY1)
The work design behaviour of manager Y1 is high on employee involvement, operators were included in the project and are also able to come with new ideas. The work has been simplified but was not received as a negative experience.
‘’Operators found it strange, but they saw also the favour of it because they had less work later on.’’ (MY1)
Manager Y2 is an Extravert and Agreeable personality. He likes to meet new people and to be
around on the shop floor. This to have close contact with the workers and operators. This contact also results in a trustworthy and approachable behaviour for employees.
‘’I like to have a lot of contact with the shop floor….and I like to meet new people’’(MY2) They bring subjects to the table toward me. So I am in this respect approachable for them’’
(MY2)
As a work designer manager Y2 designed a more simplified job for the operators. Compared to the old manufacturing line, the craftsmanship has disappeared. The work has become a more interpretative mental job than physical. During the design process, he involved multiple operators to let them contribute to the process.
‘’You need to understand production process…and being critical to get the desired quality’’ (MY2)
Page | 11
4.2. Cross-case analysis
In this section, a short cross-case analysis was performed related to the three main concepts of this research.
4.2.1. Change in work design due to smart manufacturing
In all three cases, the newly implemented SM technology resulted in a decrease of job autonomy and skill variety. The high level of automation replaced most of the mental work and craftsmanship by a more monitoring role for the operator/worker. Where in the past the operator needed to intervene the process is nowadays no longer necessary. The amount of freedom is therefore in all cases decreased. Despite that some operators work individually, autonomy is still reduced due to the limitation of the technology. Besides autonomy, the skill variety has been changed. The smart technology not only eliminates certain skills but also generated circumstances, where more and new skills are required. This change on his own increased the job complexity of the remaining operator jobs. The complexity of the machines and automation of operations is an important factor in the work design changes.
4.2.2. Personality traits
In all three cases, there were six different managers, with six different but also similar personality traits. In Table 2 an overview is given of the applicable personality traits per manager, positively and negatively related. From the five personality traits, agreeableness and extraversion are the most positive cross-case related personality traits of the managers. Only two managers tend to be positive on conscientiousness. The personality traits, emotional stability and openness to experience were found by three of the six managers. Managers Y1 and Y2 found themselves innovative, but not directly creative and were more driven to force innovation from a managerial perspective. Therefore, they were assigned +/- for openness to experience.
Table 2: Personality trait overview of case study managers
Conscientiousness Emotional
Stability Extravert Agreeableness Openness
Page | 12
4.2.3. Work design behaviour of managers
In all three cases, the work design behaviours of the managers were directed by the implemented smart manufacturing technology. The automation and increase of quality, capacity and speed were the baselines of their work design behaviour. In case A and Y the managers involved their employees in the design process of the SM technology. In case A, the managers were proactive in the work design of their employees, by designing challenging work for every individual employee, to fit employees needs and keep the motivation high. Employees who were not appropriate to the smart manufacturing technology were placed elsewhere in the organization. Also, case Y provided extra training and coaching to support the employee in the work design change. But the employees were more directed to fit within the technology. In the case of organization X, the employees were involved in the design process, but the influence of the employees seems way less than in case A and Y. The focus of the two managers was more related to technology than the work design of the individual employee.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
Interpretation of results
The main purpose of this research was to link the personality antecedent of work design to the work design behaviour of managers. Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, (2019) introduced the possible link between leadership style and work design behaviour, were Judge and Bono 2000 had already elaborated on this, that transformational leadership can be predicted by certain personality traits. To get a better understanding of this relationship the following research question was presented:
How does personality influence the work design behaviour of managers in the light of smart manufacturing?
From the case study analysis two core results were found.
Page | 13 to the attempt of enriched work design behaviour, by being proactive in considering the individual work design and increase of job motivation.
The second finding is that both managers of case X were positively assigned to the emotional stability trait. Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, (2019) stated that individuals use enriched work design strategies as a solution to hypothetical problems as increased work stress. Emotional stable individuals are more stress resistant, which may lead that this kind of work design problems is neglected. In the case of X, manager X2 showed the most signs of simplifying work design and neglects the individual perspective. This may be explained by, that manager X2 lacks on the agreeableness personality trait. In combination with the partially negative relation to openness to experience, could potentially lead to simplified poor work designs.
By answering the research question it can be concluded that the work design behaviour can be influenced by personality in both enriching or simplifying work design. Openness to experience tends to correlate positively with job enrichment, where emotional stability and the lack of agreeableness tend to design work from the job simplification perspective. The other personality traits don’t show a pattern or correlation in this research and literature, which probably comes to the small scale of this research.
Theoretical and practical implications
The base of this research was to contribute to the work design influences framework of Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, (2017) by elaborating on the gathering more inside into the relationship between the individual influence antecedent personality and managerial work design behaviour. With this research, a first step was made to close this gap. To create a better understanding of this subject more detailed and extending research is needed. Only with more applicable data, strong relationships between all personality traits can be substantiated.
In practice can managers fulfil different types of role, which require also different types of managers. By knowing the personality traits of certain managers it could show which manager is more applicable for a certain role. If a manager naturally tends the required direction of change or behaviour, it will lower the possibility of missing the desired company goal.
Critical reflection of study
Page | 14 inequalities in the quality and focus of the interview. Interviewers may have misunderstood the question or were more focused on the question applicable to their research. Further, in this research, the personality traits of the manager were assigned based on direct question and applicable text sentences. In future research, it would be more reliable to use the 240-item NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (McCrae and Costa, 2003). This is a widely used measurement system for the assignment of personality traits. Finally, it would be recommended to let managers design a new case fictional case to find their work design behaviour, by doing so the influential bias of management-teams decisions will be eliminated.
Bibliography
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. and Li, N. (1991) ‘The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis’, Personnel Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 44(1), pp. 1– 26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K. and Li, N. (2013) ‘The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics’, Academy of Management
Review, 38(1), pp. 132–153. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0479.
Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. and Schindler, P. (2014) ‘Qualitative data analysis : an overview’, in Business Research Methods. Fourth. London: McGrawHill Eduction, pp. 643–657.
Cagliano, R. et al. (2019) ‘The interplay between smart manufacturing technologies and work organization: The role of technological complexity’, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 39(6), pp. 913–934. doi: 10.1108/IJOPM-01-2019-0093.
Cordery, J. and Parker, S. K. (2012) Work Design: Creating Jobs and Roles That Promote
Individual Effectiveness, The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0009.
Davis, J. et al. (2012) ‘Smart manufacturing, manufacturing intelligence and demand-dynamic performance’, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 47, pp. 145–156. doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.037.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research, Source: The Academy
of Management Review. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258557 (Accessed: 14
April 2020).
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007) ‘Theory Building from Cases : Opportunities and Challenges Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : THEORY BUILDING FROM CASES : OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES’, Organizational
Page | 15 Frank, A. G. et al. (2019) ‘International Journal of Production Economics Industry 4 . 0 technologies : Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies’, Intern. Journal of
Production Economics, 210(September 2018), pp. 15–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.
Gellatly, I. R. et al. (2009) ‘Personality , Autonomy , and Contextual Performance of Managers Personality , Autonomy , and Contextual Performance of Managers’, 9285. doi: 10.1207/S15327043HUP1403.
Hackman, J. R. et al. (1975) ‘A New Strategy for Job Enrichment’, XVII(4).
Hammarberg, K., Kirkman, M. and De Lacey, S. (2016) ‘Qualitative research methods: When to use them and how to judge them’, Human Reproduction, 31(3), pp. 498–501. doi:
10.1093/humrep/dev334.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2016) ‘Digitalisierung industrieller Arbeit: Entwicklungspfade und Perspektiven’, Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1), pp. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s12651-016-0200-6.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D. and 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(5), pp. 1332– 1356. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Judge, T. A. et al. (2000) ‘Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics’, Journal of Applied Psychology. American Psychological Association Inc., 85(2), pp. 237–249. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.237.
Judge, T. A. et al. (2002) ‘Personality and Leadership : A Qualitative and Quantitative Review Personality and Leadership : A Qualitative and Quantitative Review’, (January). doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765.
Judge, T. A. and Bono, J. E. (2000) ‘Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership’, Journal of Applied Psychology. American Psychological Association Inc., 85(5), pp. 751–765. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.751.
Judge, T. A. and Zapata, C. P. (2015) ‘The person-situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), pp. 1149–1179. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0837.
Liker, J. K., Haddad, C. J. and Karlin, J. (1999) ‘Perspectives on Technology and Work Organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), pp. 575–596. doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.575.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P. T. (2003) Personality in adulthood : a five-factor theory
perspective. Guilford Press.
Page | 16 Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), pp. 1321–1339. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.
Mumford, T. V, Campion, M. A. and Morgeson, F. P. (2007) ‘The leadership skills strataplex : Leadership skill requirements across organizational levels’, The Leadership
Quarterly 18, 18, pp. 154–166. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.01.005.
Parker, S. K. (2014) ‘Beyond Motivation: Job and Work Design for Development, Health, Ambidexterity, and More’, Annual Review of Psychology, 65(1), pp. 661–691. doi:
10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208.
Parker, S. K., Andrei, D. M. and 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), pp. 907–928. doi: 10.1037/apl0000383.
Parker, S. K., Van Den Broeck, A. and Holman, D. (2017) ‘Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs’, Academy of Management
Annals, 11(1), pp. 267–308. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0054.
Parker, S. K. and Grote, G. (2020) ‘Automation, Algorithms, and Beyond: Why Work Design Matters More Than Ever in a Digital World’, Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1111/apps.12241. Saha, S. and Sharma, R. R. K. (2019) ‘The impact of personality and cognitive style of managers on their work types’, Journal of Management Development, VOL. 38 No, pp. 58– 71. doi: 10.1108/JMD-04-2017-0103.
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008) ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), pp. 294– 308. doi: 10.1177/1065912907313077.
Page | 17
Appendix A: Interview script case study in Dutch Sectie 1: Achtergrond information
1.1. Wat is uw rol binnen het bedrijf en wat zijn uw verantwoordelijkheden? 1.2. Wat is uw werk ervaring?
1.3. Kunt u het bedrijf omschrijven in termen van: 1.3.1. De industrie waar het bedrijf zich in bevindt
1.3.2. De producten en services die het bedrijf aanbiedt/verleent 1.3.3. Markt type (B2B/ B2C)
1.3.4. Aantal medewerkers 1.3.5. Type productieprocessen
1.4. Wat heeft u gestudeerd/ opleiding gedaan?
1.5. Hoe omschrijft u de algemene bedrijfscultuur en de interactie tussen het management en de werkvloer?
Sectie 2: Informatie over de smart technologie project/ implementatie
2.1. Kunt u het geïmplementeerde smart technologie project beschrijven? 2.2. Wat waren de hoofdactiviteiten van dit project?
2.3. Wat was uw rol en dagelijkse taken gedurende het project? 2.4. Wie waren er betrokken bij het project en wat waren hun taken?
2.5. Had u voorgaande ervaring met het implementeren van zulke technologische projecten?
2.6. Wat waren de hoofdreden om deze technologie toe te passen/ te implementeren? 2.7. Had u alle benodigde middelen om het project tot een succes te maken?
2.8. Waren er restricties/ beperkingen gedurende het project, zo ja, kunt u hier meer over vertellen?
Sectie 3: Mindset en work design
3.1. Hoe beoordeelt uw een goed “work design” of implementatie van de technologie? 3.2. Wat zijn volgens u de ultieme criteria voor het succes van de implementatie en hoe
kunnen deze gerealiseerd worden?
3.3. Om er zeker van te zijn dat de technologie de productie verbeterde, wat moet er nog meer gedaan worden, naast de technologie?
3.4. Wat is uw visie op de rol van mensen/medewerkers in de fabriek/op de werkvloer? 3.5. Welke menselijke overwegingen zijn er gemaakt tijdens het project?
3.6. Wat heeft u gedaan om het perspectief van de medewerkers mee te nemen in de besluitvorming/ project? Kunt uw een voorbeeld geven?
3.7. Wie was er verantwoordelijk voor in acht name van de menselijke invloeden (Hun werk, taken, vaardigheden) gedurende het project?
3.8. Was de gebruiker van de nieuwe technologie betrokken bij de ontwikkeling/ implementatie van de technologie?
3.9. Welke rol/personeelsproblemen deden/doen zich voor bij de implementering van de nieuwe technologie? Werken mensen nog op dezelfde manier, zo niet wat is er veranderd?
3.10. Welke functies werden toegewezen aan een persoon dan aan een machine/ software? Hoe werden deze keuzes gemaakt of hoe zou u deze keuzes maken? 3.11. Welke menselijke overwegingen heeft u gemaakt betreft het behouden van
Page | 18 3.12. (Wanneer menselijke factoren/overwegingen niet zijn overwogen): Waarom
zijn deze menselijke factoren niet overwogen?
Sectie 4: Work design veranderingen
4.1. Welke medewerkers groep was het meest beïnvloed door de implementatie?
4.2. Hoe is het work design van de medewerkers veranderd die het meest beïnvloed waren door de implementatie van de technologie? (Geef per verandering kort aan wat de
onderliggende motivatie was voor de verandering? Waarom is het veranderd?)
4.3. Hoe werden deze veranderingen gecommuniceerd naar de betrokken stakeholders/ medewerkers?
4.4. Waren er sommige van deze veranderingen onverwacht? 4.5 (Indien meer detail nodig is, vraag dan de volgende vragen)
4.5.1. Is het niveau van autonomie veranderd? Welke controle heeft de medewerker nog ten opzichte van de machine?
4.5.2. Krijgen de medewerkers feedback van de technologie? 4.5.3. Is het werk verlangen veranderd voor deze medewerkers? 4.5.4. Moest de medewerker nieuwe skills ontwikkelen?
4.5.5. Is de complexiteit van het werk veranderd door de technologie? 4.5.6. Is de sociale interactie verbeterd door het gebruik van de technologie
Sectie 5: Persoonlijke invloeden
5.1. Wat is de gemiddelde leeftijd van uw afdeling? En bedrijf? 5.2. Wat is uw leeftijd en geslacht?
5.3. Wat is de verhouding man/vrouw binnen uw afdeling? En bedrijf?
5.4. Ziet u zichzelf als iemand die openstaat voor verandering, conservatief of ergens in het midden? Kun u uitleggen waarom?
Werkdruk
5.5. Hoe voelt u zich in termen van werkdruk wanneer u niet bezig bent met de implementatie van de technologie? (Cognitief, fysiek, emotioneel).
5.6. Was/ is dit veranderd toen u werd betrokken bij de implementatie van de technologie? Zo ja in welk opzicht?
5.7. Was/is de werkdruk weer omgedraaid toen de implementatie was afgerond?
5.8. Denkt u dat u meer tijd zal besteden aan het denken over werk karakteristieken wanneer de werkdruk lager zou zijn?
Persoonlijke factoren
5.9. Hoe zou u uw eigen persoonlijkheid en acties in de werkomgeving beschrijven in termen van: (Indien mogelijk geef een klein voorbeeld)
5.9.1. Conscientiousness (Zorgvuldigheid, georganiseerd)
Ben u bewust van uw acties en bent u gemotiveerd om ambitieuze doelen te stellen? Ben u opgeruimd, heeft u een goede planning en zeer georganiseerd?
5.9.2. Emotionele stabiliteit
Kunt u werken in stresssituaties/ emotionele situaties en hoe gaat u hier mee om? Bent u snel bang/ongerust dat eventueel dingen niet gaan zoals u het zou willen? 5.9.3. Extravert
Page | 19 Bent u betrokken bij uw medewerkers?
Bent u sensitief, betrouwbaar? Zijn medewerkers bereid hun problemen direct bij u neer te leggen?
5.9.5. Openheid
Hoe benaderbaar bent u voor andere mensen/ uw medewerkers?
Houdt u van technische innovatie en bent u altijd opzoek naar nieuwe kansen? Bent u creatief en heeft u soms onconventionele ideeën/ gedachtes?
5.10. Kunt u zichtzelf een waarde geven voor deze 5 factoren? 1= Ben ik totaal niet; 3= Neutraal ;5=Ben ik totaal
5.10.1 Denkt u dat persoonlijkheid invloed kan hebben op de contributie van de keuzes die gemaakt worden over werk design?
Het betrekken van de proces uitvoerder
5.11. Heeft u de proces uitvoerder betrokken bij de implementatie van de technologie? 5.12. Waarom heeft u dit gedaan? Of waarom niet?
5.13. Vanuit ervaring, wat denkt u dat het effect zal zijn wanneer de proces uitvoerder betrokken is bij het designproces?
Wat is uw mening op het ontwerpen van een proces en dan nooit meer aanpassingen doen? Wat is uw mening op het ontwerpen van een proces en deze dan later aanpassing met behulp van de uitvoerder?
Machtigen (Empowerment)
5.14. Hebben de uitvoerende medewerkers nieuwe competenties of oude verbeterd na de implementatie van de technologie?
5.15. Zijn uitvoerende/ operators momenteel uitgedaagd om hun skills te benutten?
5.16 Deelt u doelen, informatie en problemen met uitvoerende? Zo ja, hoe wordt dit gecommuniceerd?
5.17 Op welke manier heeft u de deelname van de operator gemonitord betreffende dit doel? 5.18 Houdt u er rekening mee of de operator zich betrokken voelt of niet?
5.19 Herkende u de verbeteringen gemaakt door de uitvoerende/operator aan de technologie/implementatie?
5.20 Faciliteerde u groep/team ontwikkeling aan de uitvoerende toen de nieuwe technologie was geïmplementeerd? Zo ja, Hoe werd dit gefaciliteerd? (Denk hierbij aan trainingen etc.) 5.21. Hoe bemoedigt u zelfsturing en groepskeuzes naar operators sinds de implementatie? 5.22. Heeft u trainingen gefaciliteerd gedurende de implementatie? Faciliteert u ook trainingen na de implementatie van de technologie?
Algemene afsluitende vragen
5.23 Ziet u de implementatie van de technologie als een succes en waarom? 5.24 Wat waren de negatieve uitkomsten van het project en wat de goede?
Page | 20
Appendix B: The coding scheme of data analysis
Concept variable Starting codes Code Definition Source
Smart technologies and work design
(Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2016; Waschull et al., 2019)
Smart technologies A1 Application of networked information-based technologies (Frank et al., 2019) Job complexity A2 A job with a high level of information processing (Humphrey et al., 2007)
Job autonomy A3 Amount of freedom and independence to perform the job (Hackman et al., 1975) Skill variety A4 Variety of skills and capabilities needed to perform the job (Waschull et al., 2019)
Work design behaviour
(Parker, Andrei and Van den Broeck, 2019;
Waschull et al., 2019)
Job enrichment B1 The increase in employees' autonomy over the control and execution of the job
(Parker, 2014) Job simplification B2 Simplification of job tasks by the allocation of mental tasks and
routine jobs tasks
(Parker, 2014) Motivational boost B2 Work design with the focus on motivational boost (Parker, 2014)
Job involvement B4 The degree of involvement of the employee in the job tasks (Parker, Van Den Broeck and Holman, 2017) Techno-centred B5 Work design focused on automation optimisation, automate were
possible
(Waschull et al., 2019) Human-centred B6 Work design from a human perspective, human remains control (Waschull et al., 2019) Personality
(Judge and Zapata, 2015)
Conscientiousness C1 Ambitious and striving for achievement individuals (Barrick et al., 2013) Emotional stability C2 Relax, calm and good stress resistant individuals (Barrick et al., 1991)
Extraversion C3 Active, outgoing, assertive and sociable individuals (Judge and Bono, 2000) Agreeableness C4 Creative, innovative and broad-minded individuals (Barrick et al., 2013)
Page | 21
Appendix C: Excerpt of coding in Dutch Manager A1
Concept Interviewee First Order Code Code1 Code2 Code3
Smart technologies
and work design
Manager A1 Deze machine kan dit nu allemaal zelfstandig. En dat is de grote winst in tijd en personeel A1
Manager A1 Met een barcode worden de maten gecheckt en als die niet goed zijn, dan stop de machine
ermee A1 B2
Manager A1 Op de werkvloer was de kozijnenlijn de moeilijkste machinale techniek A2
Manager A1 Het was vooral dat de mensen die het niet aan konden werden verplaatst naar andere
functies. A2 B2 B5
Manager A1 Het vergt cognitief meer van de mensen en een andere houding A2
Manager A1 Ze rouleren op de complexe machines, om te prikkelen en te stimuleren. A2 A4
Manager A1 Dat er goed gecommuniceerd worden. Als er iets is of dat het beter kan of makkelijker, dat
ze dan komen. A3 C4
Manager A1 Eigenlijk wordt het denken overgenomen van de mens A3
Manager A1 In andere werkzaamheden kunnen ze nog wel meer hun autonomie kwijt, waar ze zelf nog wel meer keuzes kunnen maken
A3 Manager A1 Ze weten precies wat er gemaakt moeten worden en ook welke orders er zijn. A3
Manager A1 Ja met name door de operator worden er verbetering doorgevoerd A3
Manager A1 Drie machine operator van de vier staan ze nu ook aan andere installaties waar meer
kennis wordt gevraagd A4 B1
Manager A1 Je moet gewoon rouleren om je flexibel te houden in productie. A4 B1
Manager A1 De keuze van deze technologie had onder andere ook te maken de ervaring van de
machinebouwers A4
Work design behaviour
Manager A1 We investeren ook om het werk van de medewerkers te verlichten. We doen daar heel veel
aan. B1
Manager A1 Wanneer het werk simpeler wordt en er minder fouten worden gemaakt. B2
Manager A1 Tegenwoordig is het werk simpeler geworden en hoeven ervoor en achter aan de lijn geen machine operators meer te staan
B2 B5 Manager A1 Alleen voor sommigen is de complexiteit wel naar beneden gegaan, omdat ze nu alleen nog
hoeven te controleren. B2 A2 A4
Manager A1 De motivatie en initiatief is wel heel belangrijk. Hoe meer je mensen betrekt hoe beter de
Page | 22
Work design behaviour
Manager A1 Het ligt ook een klein beetje bij de mensen zelf, als mensen meer willen dan ze doen, dan zullen ze een opleiding moeten volgen en dat ook intern hier
B3 Manager A1 Vanaf het begin hebben we het personeel van de machinale er bij betrokken en hebben op
tijd informatie gehad B4
Manager A1 Zonder meer, voordat alles klaar was, had ieder personeelslid zijn kans gehad wat te zeggen en nog steeds veranderen er dingen
B4 Manager A1 We zijn toen gaan kijken wat zij ervan vonden. Ze zijn wel heel nauw betrokken geweest
tijdens de eind procedure. B4
Manager A1 Maar op een gegeven moment moet je toch de keuzes die je maakt doorzetten. B5 Manager A1 Jazeker, nou ik zie dat er nu een product af komt dat af en waar veel minder handelen voor nodig is en dat gewoon kwalitatief veel beter is
B5 B2 Manager A1 Het menselijke perspectief wordt dus daadwerkelijk wel in acht genomen en worden er
geen mensen ontslagen B6
Personality
Manager A1 Ik ben in de dingen die ik doe wel gestructureerd C1 Manager A1 Op dat gebied ben ik wel redelijk ambitieus en dat wordt wel goed ontvangen en de directie gaat er ook altijd wel in mee
C1 Manager A1 Ik had niet het gevoel van enige werkdruk gedurende de implementatie C2
Manager A1 Soms dan schiet ik nog weleens in de stress, maar dat is dan vooral persoonlijk en hoe je je op dat moment in je vel zit
C2 Manager A1 Dat zijn voor mij eigenlijk de krenten in de pap van het werk. Ik vind dat heerlijk om nieuwe mensen te ontmoeten, dat is het liefste wat ik doe
C3 Manager A1 iedereen komt ook gerust naar mij als ze wat willen, of een vragen hebben, of thuis een
probleem hebben C4
Manager A1 Ik vond het heerlijk dat ze kwamen met het voorstel van de nieuwe kozijnenlijn C5 Manager A1 Ik heb nog een voorstel gedaan voor de komende jaren nog voordat ik hier stop wil ik dit nog graag gedaan hebben/ klaar hebben
