The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.

htm

Job design for learning in work groups

Annika Lantz
University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden and Fritz Change AB, Stocksund, Sweden, and

Job design for learning in work groups 269

Agneta Brav
Department of Social Sciences, Malardalen University, Vasteras, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose What is required of job design and production planning, if they are to result in a work group taking a self-starting approach and going beyond what is formally required of it? This paper aims to contribute to group research by testing a theoretical model of relations between job design on the one hand (captured as completeness, demand on responsibility, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand, and learning opportunities), and reexivity and learning processes within natural work groups in industry on the other hand. Design/methodology/approach The results are based on detailed task analyses and questionnaires from 40 work groups at the shop-oor level in manufacturing industry in Sweden. Findings Job design and work routines show strong effects on reexivity and learning processes. Four dimensions of job design completeness, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand and learning opportunities impact on reexivity and learning processes. Job design correlates with social routines, and social routines with work routines. Practical implications It is crucial to create a job design that puts challenging demands on the group if group processes are to be characterized by reexivity and learning. Managers have a challenging task to provide both a space and a climate that supports reexivity and learning. All functions affected by production planning need to be involved in job design to balance conicts between productivity and innovation. Originality/value Detailed task analysis is worthwhile as it captures aspects that are prerequisites for innovative groups not previously accounted for. Keywords Group work, Job design, Workplace learning, Innovation, Sweden Paper type Research paper

Introduction In Sweden, where the group form of working in industry is well established (Lantz, 1995), a strong tendency is emerging to reorganize into conventional line-production. The closing down of the last few remaining work groups in the (ex-Volvo) Uddevalla plant last year is just one example (Lorenz and Velayre, 2003). Ulich and Weber (1996) refer to a meta-analysis. They conclude that work in partly autonomous groups in industry leads to an increase in productivity, and their results are supported by extensive research (for a review see Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). This does not convince managers that the investment in group-work is worthwhile. What is required of job design and production planning, if they are to result in a work group taking a self-starting approach and going beyond what is formally required of it? The latter is
The authors would like to thank Nazar Akrami, Anna-Christina Blomkvist, Bo Ekehammar, Peter Friedrich and Peter Richter for their helpful comments and support.

Journal of Workplace Learning Vol. 19 No. 5, 2007 pp. 269-285 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1366-5626 DOI 10.1108/13665620710757833

JWL 19,5

270

perhaps the argument for why the group form of working should remain an important work organizational solution in industry. Learning in groups, and related effects such as innovation, and change and developmental work, requires group processes characterized by reexivity and learning (Boud and Middleton, 2003; Driver, 2003; Druskat, 2000; Edmondson, 1999; West et al., 2004). Our aim is to contribute to group research by testing a theoretical model of relations between job design on the one hand (captured as completeness, demand on responsibility, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand and learning opportunities), and reexivity and learning processes within natural work groups in industry on the other hand. Effects of group work in industry The input-process-output model (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987) is generally accepted among researchers as a basis for the empirical study of work groups (Antoni, 2005; Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; West et al., 2004). Job design, interdependence, group composition, organizational context, and process are dimensions that impact outcomes such as effectiveness, productivity and job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; Stewart, 2006). Previous research has provided substantial evidence that job design in terms of autonomy and related characteristics such as control, inuence and task complexity, impact on group processes and group performance such as productivity (for an overview, see Ulich and Weber, 1996) and innovation and creativity (Brodbeck, 1996; West et al., 2003, 2004). Other aspects of job design, such as task identity, task signicance and task feedback, have been shown to contribute to group processes and performance as well (for reviews, see Campion et al., 1996; Stewart, 2006; West et al., 2003, 2004). Reexivity and learning in groups The interaction process of group learning can be characterized as habitual work and social routines, and meta-routines that involve reexivity and discussion of how habits might impede effectiveness, creativity and change (Gersick and Hackman, 1990; Smith, 1996). The habitual social routines can be described in terms of potency, social support, workload sharing and communication/cooperation (Campion et al., 1993, 1996). Habitual social routines that predict team learning are informal interactions, interpersonal understanding, proactivity in problem-solving, dealing with the atypical, creating clear work procedures and confronting team members who violate norms (Boud and Middleton, 2003; Driver, 2003; Druskat, 2000; Seibert, 1999). Psychological safety and trust are important for team learning as people tend to act in ways that inhibit learning when they face the potential threats or embarrassment (Edmondson, 1999). In conclusion, collective reexivity can be assigned to meta-routines and is an essential part of team learning. The group taking a self-starting approach to work, and going beyond what is formally required of it, will demand discussions and reexivity on the prerequisites of group work, tasks, habitual work routines, habitual social routines, as well as the effects of work (Daudelin, 1996; North et al., 2005; West et al., 2004).

Job design and task analysis Action regulation theory provides a wide list of task characteristics and aspects of job design (including control, autonomy and complexity) that promote health, motivation, personal development and learning (Dunckel and Volpert, 1993; Hacker, 2001, 2003). Task analysis by experts is regarded as a more valid tool than subjective measurements, and some variables cannot be captured with interviews or questionnaires; the predominant methods used for group studies (Frese and Zapf, 1994, Hacker, 2001, 2003; Richter et al., 1999; Ulich, 1990; Ulich and Weber, 1996; Volpert et al., 1983). We use this more elaborate framework for exploring dimensions in job design that contribute to the development of reexivity and learning processes within work groups (Richter et al., 1999). Organizational and technological conditions determining the completeness of work. Completeness (Frese and Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 2001, 2003) refers both to hierarchical completeness in terms of cognitive demand (work tasks that vary in cognitive demand and also put challenging demands on the individual) and sequential completeness (planning, executing and feedback). Goal-setting, planning, decision on action programs and autonomous decision-making are essential parts of the planning phase. The completeness of work includes aspects previously studied in relation to group work, such as autonomy, task variety, participation, task signicance, and task identity (Campion et al., 1996). Autonomy and control are separate parts of task completeness but distinctive to complexity (Richter et al., 1999). See Appendix 1 for a complete list of items. H1. Completeness correlates positively with Reexivity and Learning Processes, as constrained work activities offer little freedom of choice, and hence provide little input to discussions about how to perform, or change and develop the work. Demand on cooperation. Since the Hawthorne studies (Mayo, 1933), research has provided substantial evidence that well-designed jobs contain opportunities to cooperate within the job. It is not unusual in industry for a production line to be divided into segments, where groups perform tasks that can be performed individually and the work itself does not require cooperation. Campion et al. (1996) showed that the degree of dependency between group members affects group processes. Richter et al. (1999) provide substantial evidence that demand on cooperation in terms of forms of cooperation, amount of cooperation and content of communication are important aspects of the jobs inherent learning opportunities. H2. Demand on cooperation correlates positively with reexivity and learning processes as more close cooperation will provide more themes that have to be solved in the group. Demand on responsibility. Content of responsibility includes responsibility for the fullment of quantity targets, target dates or for the adherence to quality parameters of the individuals own tasks (Richter et al., 1999). Tasks that are conducive to learning should be connected with responsibility for material assets, information, cost development, and with the safety and health of fellow employees. A well-designed job gives opportunities to decide autonomously, in connection with acceptance of

Job design for learning in work groups 271

JWL 19,5

individual and communal responsibility for areas of work (Richter et al., 1999). Taking communal responsibility is a challenge for all work groups. H3. Demand on responsibility correlates positively with reexivity and learning processes as the individual and communal responsibilities need to be claried within the group.

272

Cognitive demand. A well-designed job provides opportunities to deal with demanding tasks, i.e. tasks that are mentally stimulating and require creativity at least some of the time (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Fay and Frese, 2001, Hacker, 2001, 2003; Ulich and Weber, 1996; Volpert et al., 1983). A challenging task has shown to be of importance for the development of innovative groups (for a review, see West et al., 2004). Among action regulation theorists, there is a long tradition of analyzing task complexity as the degree of demand on cognition (in terms of planning, decision-making, and problem-solving) the task puts on the individual (Hacker, 2001, 2003; Volpert et al., 1983). Cognitive regulation requirements are measured by means of a careful analysis of the relation between work activity and goal for that specic activity. The scales lowest point describes a task that requires only sensory motor regulation i.e. is purely routine. At the other end of the scale, the task requires the establishment of new working processes and puts challenging demands on planning, decision-making, and problem-solving capacity. H4. Cognitive demand correlates positively with reexivity and learning processes as a mentally challenging task should stimulate reexivity in itself, and be more interesting to discuss. Learning opportunities. Preservation and enlargement of qualication and abilities are related to the extent the tasks put demand on continuous learning and whether previous training and experience are used (Richter et al., 1999). Well-designed jobs give opportunities for further training and learning during work, as well as application of acquired knowledge and abilities (Richter et al., 1999). H5. Learning opportunities in order to be able to carry out work activities correlate positively with reexivity and learning processes within the group. The model employed for the current study is presented in Figure 1. Methods The results are based on detailed work task analysis (REBA, see Task analysis below) and a survey administered to members of 40 work groups in Swedish industry. Working conditions are an important input to work group processes and performance within the commonly accepted input-process-output framework of teams (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1984). Work task analysis by experts is regarded as a more valid tool than subjective measurements, and some variables cannot be captured with interviews or questionnaires (Hacker, 2001, 2003; Richter et al., 1999; Volpert et al., 1983). Further, it provides information about aspects that to our knowledge have previously not been studied in group research on the relations between job design and reexivity and learning. Group processes (work routines, social routines and reexivity and learning processes) were captured by the questionnaire. To test the theoretical model (see Figure 1) a structural equation

Job design for learning in work groups 273

Figure 1. Hypothetical model of the causal relation between job design, work routines, social routines and reexivity and learning processes

modeling (SEM) analysis was conducted through a LISREL analysis. The purpose of using LISREL, or any structural equation modelling, is to determine the extent to which the theoretical model is supported by sample data (Schumacker and Lomax, 2004, p. 2). An invitation to participate in the study was accompanied by a letter describing the study in detail to all participants. The survey was administered to the group members at work, and at that time the researchers described the study and ethical aspects once again. The task analyses were conducted by observation and observational interviews of the groups work during the working day. Sample and missing cases In order to nd a sufcient number of natural work groups that met the inclusion criteria (see below), data were gathered in four manufacturing industries within the same region of Sweden. The companies were chosen with control for main task in production (assembly work), production technology, organizational support to the groups in forms of opportunities for training and competence development, overall work-organization, concept for group working, selection criteria for group composition; and production planning. Extensive previous research (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; West et al., 2004) has shown that reexivity and learning presuppose a job design characterized by autonomy so that the group can determine its own courses of action. The inclusion criteria (see below) were to ensure work group autonomy and other preconditions of work that give the groups opportunities to share work experiences freely during the working day. Forty groups (out of a total of 43) (mean size seven members; 4-16 members per group) were selected on the basis of the following criteria: . the members had worked together for at least a year (with group composition stable over that period); . they did not have a leader functioning as team coach or specically focusing on intra-group interaction; . all members worked day time/day shifts; . the members had the same principal task;

JWL 19,5

. .

the group had regular meetings at least once a week; the regular meetings provided scope for free and spontaneous discussion of issues chosen by the group members; and the immediate superior gave the group autonomy to decide what work routines were the most effective and let the group organize the daily work.

274

The overall participation rate was 90 percent, and the vast majority were men (80 percent). See Table I for background information (n 297). Measures Task analysis. During the last 30 years, a valid system for task analysis has been developed as a tool for human-centred job design (Frese and Zapf, 1994; Hacker, 2001, 2003; Richter et al., 1999; Ulich, 1990; Ulich and Weber, 1996). The REBA instrument (Rechnergestu tztes Dialogverfahren zur psychologischen Bewertung von Arbeitsinhalten in German) is a semi-standardized system of task analysis. It is intended for the analysis, evaluation and design of work content and job design with the objective of increased effectiveness, optimized mental load, health and personality development at work. The latter is understood as preservation and enlargement of qualications and abilities, preservation and stimulation of work motivation, and preservation and strengthening of physical and mental health (Richter et al., 1999). The starting-point for the task analysis is the job with its different tasks. At the production site, the 40 groups carried out different jobs, and these were each carefully analyzed and evaluated. After gathering background information, such as documents describing technology, the work structure and workow of each job were studied. The work structure was described in terms of the number of tasks. Once the workow had been described, the time for each task was noted. Data on task characteristics were based on observations of staff carrying out each specic task and on complementing interviews with staff. Each task, as well as the job as a whole, received a prole based on the mean value of the scales and an overall mean value of the 22 ordinal scales (see Appendix 1 for a description of all REBA variables, and Table II for an example of a scale). Level of mental demand item 20 in Appendix 1 was measured for all different tasks in a job. The value for the principal task (the task that took the greater part of the working day) correlates positively (r 83, p , 0:001) with the value for the least demanding task (the task with the lowest value of cognitive demand, i.e. a routine work task). The principal task correlates with the most demanding task (r 93, p , 0:001)
Age (years) (n 297) ,25 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-65 2.7% 8.4% 39% 25.9% 18.2% 5.7% Company tenure (n 296) One year 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years . 10 years 20.3% 12.1% 11.1% 8.4% 13.9% 34.2%

Work tenure (n 295) 24.4% 12.9% 11.2% 10.2% 10.2% 31.1%

Education level Low (#9 years) Middle ( 10-12 years) High ($ 12 years) 38.7% 53.9% 7.4%

Table I. Background information for participants

as well. Internal consistency showed a 0:93 and the results are based on the value for the principal task. Observer reliability was attained by using a guide handbook for REBA task analysis and training procedures, supervision by expert, and by using two independent observers for the analysis. The initial inter-rater agreement was 91 percent. When discrepancies in evaluation between observers were found, these tasks were discussed with expert. New assessments were conducted and absolute agreement was reached. The questionnaire. Based on previous research, a number of questions were constructed for the survey instrument used in the present study. The statements presented to respondents, (see Appendix 2) concerning work routines were designed and tested by Campion et al. (1993) (items 14-18), Edmondson (1999) (items 9-11, 20), Lantz and Laamme (1996) (item 19), and Matsson (2001) (items 12-13). Social routines were designed and tested by Campion et al. (1993) (item 21), Edmondson (1999) (items 24-28), and Lantz and Laamme (1996) (items 22-23). The statements concerning reexivity and learning processes were designed and tested by Edmondson (1999) (items 2-5) and Matsson (2001) (items 1, 6-8). A pilot study was conducted in two companies not part of the present study to further test the reliability of the survey measurements. On the basis of these questions, an attempt was made to arrive at multi-dimensional measures founded on the general theoretical model illustrated in Figure 1. Background data consisted of personal data (age, gender, formal education, work and organizational tenure). The results of the survey are based on mean values of the group members responses. The extent to which team members responses agree with each other, measured as intra-class coefcients, were calculated for all group-level variables (Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). To generate each intra-class correlation coefcient, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the full data set of 297 cases, with team membership as the independent variable and a team survey scale as the dependent variable (see Table III). Intra-class correlations are signicant when the one-way ANOVA from which the coefcients are derived, is signicant.

Job design for learning in work groups 275

Degrees of freedom (df) with respect to autonomous goal-setting 1 2 3 4 5 6 No df with respect to autonomous goal-setting Df with respect to goals concerning speed/amount of output (O) Df with respect to O sequence of steps (S) Df with respect to O Sprocedural means (P) Df with respect to O S Pfeatures of the demanded result (F) Df with respect to O S P Findependent determination of task

Table II. Example of a REBA scale: degrees of procedural freedom

ICC1 Reexivity and learning processes Work routines Social routines Source: n 40 teams; *p , 0:10; * * *p , 0:01 0.09 0.04 0.03

ICC2 0.41 0.21 0.19

F-value 2.32 * * * 1.35 * 1.84 * * * Table III. Analysis of variance and intra-class correlation coefcients for survey measures

JWL 19,5

Results We expected that job design captured as completeness, demand on cooperation, demand on responsibility, cognition demand, and learning opportunities should all be dimensions positively associated with reexivity and learning processes in groups (H1-H5). Table IV provides means and standard deviations for the variables, and
REBA variable M (SD) 4.00 1.67 2.90 5.41 1.80 1.72 4.60 1.10 3.60 2.57 2.58 3.36 2.02 0.02 2.44 4.11 2.36 0.01 (0.01) (0.74) (0.96) (1.28) (0.69) (0.61) (0.89) (0.26) (1.07) (0.88) (0.83) (0.98) (0.27) (0.50) (0.74) (0.97 (0.85) (0.78) Reexivity and learning processes 20.1 0.40 * * 0.13 0.33 * 0.35 * 0.40 * * 0.03 0.09 0.27 * 0.61 * * 0.35 * 0.24 20.11 0.45 * * 0.41 * * 0.31 * 0.45 * * 0.44 * * 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.37 * * 0.44 * * 0.43 * * 0.40 * * 0.49 * * 0.50 * * 0.47 * * 0.85 0.54 * * 0.54 * *

276
REBA scale Completeness 1. Number of different subtasks 2. Sequential completeness 3. Organizing functions 4. Cycle length 5. Information about organization 6. Information about results 7. Feedback 8. Predictability 9. Temporal degrees of freedom 10. Procedural degrees of freedom 11. Decision demands 12. Variety of movements 13. Conict quality/quantity Completenessa (0.76) Demand on cooperation 14. Amount of cooperation 15. Forms of cooperation 16. Contents of communication Demand on cooperationa (0.81) Demand on responsibility 17. Content of responsibility 18. Group responsibility Demand on responsibilitya (0.57) Cognitive demand 19. Degree of participation 20. Level of mental demands Cognitive demanda (0.79) Learning opportunities 21. Use of qualications 22. Learning potential Learning opportunitiesa (0.64) REBA sum (0.90)a Reexivity and learning processes Work routines Social routines
b

Work routines 0.08 0.18 0.25 20.13 0.05 0.10 20.13 20.04 20.02 0.09 20.09 0.14 20.01 0.06 0.09 0.13 20.02 0.07 0.32 * 0.19 0.29 0.16 0.03 0.10 20.03 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.54 * * 0.84 0.53 * *

Social routines 0.27 * 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.15 0.22 0.03 0.27 * 0.25 0.19 0.26 2 0.13 0.29 * 0.25 0.22 0.16 0.24 0.22 0.41 * * 0.34 * 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.42 * * 0.32 * 0.32 * 0.54 * * 0.53 * * 0.76

1-4 1-4 1-5 1-7 1-3 1-3 1-5 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-5 1-4 1-3

1-5 1-9 1-6

1-5 1-4

2.86 (0.40) 2.98 (0.52) 0.03 (0.77) 2.65 (0.97) 2.80 (1.23) 0.03 (0.93) 2.95 (1.26) 2.27 (1.03) 20.02 (0.83) 0b (0.56)b 3.30b (1.09)b 4.82b (0.95)b 4.88b (.98)b

1-7 1-9

1-5 1-4 1-7 1-7 1-7

Table IV. REBA scales, means, standard deviations and correlations between REBA and main variables for the work groups

Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; one-tailed test; Cronbachs a is given in bold; astandardized values; based on all participants (n 297)

inter-correlations for the indexed variables. Table IV also presents the internal reliability coefcients. As can be seen in Table IV, results are in line with our hypotheses for completeness (H1), demand on cooperation (H2), cognitive demand (H4) and learning opportunities (H5). The results do not support H3. Correlations between job design variables on the one hand and reexivity and learning processes on the other are signicant and in the expected direction, although not all single variables are signicant. The results show that 14 (out of 22 variables) of job design, as well as the multidimensional measure of job design, are positively associated with reexivity and learning in groups. None of these variables of job design, nor the multidimensional measure, are related to habitual work routines in intra-group processes measured as work routines. Only two of these 14 variables temporal degrees of freedom and learning potential are signicantly related to social routines. Further, Table IV shows that the dimensions of job design are associated only to a very limited extent with habitual work routines. Just one single variable content of responsibility shows a signicant relation to work routines. Four aspects of job design (number of different subtasks, temporal degrees of freedom, group responsibility and learning potential) show signicant positive relations with social routines. The variables work routines and social routines are positively and signicantly related and both dimensions are positively associated with reexivity and learning processes. The association between group composition, in terms of formal education, work and organizational experience and reexivity and learning processes, was tested. There is no signicant relation between group composition in terms of work experience (r 0:08, NS), company tenure (r 0:13, NS) and reexivity and learning processes. Formal education is associated with reexivity and learning processes (r 0:41, p , 0:01). Mental demand (scale 20, Table IV) shows strong positive correlation with the overall REBA measurement (r 0:89) and can theoretically be regarded as crucial for reexivity and learning processes. There is no signicant relation between group composition in terms of formal education and reexivity and learning processes when mental demand of the work task is kept under control (chi-square (1, N 40 0:63)). The hypothesized model (Figure 1) was tested using LISREL 8.30 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993) and employing maximum likelihood estimation on the covariance matrix. As the reliability estimates of the manifest variables affect the parameters in the model, the error variances of the manifest variables were calculated using the reliability estimates (Cronbachs a) presented in Table IV (see Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993, pp. 37-8). This procedure allows an analysis of the linear structural relations among the latent rather than the manifest variables. To simplify the model presented, the manifest variables are not depicted. Model t was determined by using x 2 tests rst, but as sample size affects the x 2 value, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA # 0:06, indicating good t) was used as well. The nal causal model (Figure 2), obtained by omitting insignicant paths and rerunning the model, conrmed the hypothesized paths in Figure 1, except the path between social routines and reexivity and learning processes. Job design correlates with social routines (r 0:34, p , 0:05) and social routines with work routines (r 0:67, p , 0:05). Job design and work routines show strong effects on reexivity

Job design for learning in work groups 277

JWL 19,5

278

Figure 2. Causal model of job design, work routines, social routines, and reexivity and learning processes

and learning processes (path coefcients of 0.63 and 0.50, respectively). All path (partial regression) coefcients are statistically signicant at p , 0:05. This model showed a very good t to the data, x 2 2 1:10, p 0:58, RMSEA 0:000.

Discussion The hypothesized model of the relations between Job Design, Work Routines, Social Routines, and Reexivity and Learning Processes was tested using a LISREL analysis (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993). Job design and work routines show strong effects on reexivity and learning processes. Job design correlates with social routines, and social routines with work routines. The model showed a very good t to the data. The results do not conrm a signicant relation between social routines and reexivity and learning processes. Our results are supported by previous research. Work task complexity, skill variety and challenge, task identity, task signicance, task feedback, autonomy, inter-dependence and intra-team coordination are dimensions previously studied in relation to group processes, and performance outputs such as innovation (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; Stewart, 2006; West et al., 2004). A number of these dimensions, but differently grouped and labeled, are included in completeness, cognitive demand and demand on cooperation. The contribution to research is two-fold. First, the methodology of detailed work task analysis with its elaborated framework for capturing aspects of human-centred job design is worthwhile, as it provides data that cannot be captured with questionnaires or interviews exclusively. Second, work task analysis give input to model-building in group research as aspects of job design previously not studied in relation to group processes contribute to reexivity and learning processes, which are prerequisites for innovative groups and for groups going beyond what is formally required of them (North et al., 2005; West et al., 2004). Task analysis is not well known or much used by researchers within the eld of group research. One reason for this is

probably that most of the research is published in German. Another reason might be that task analysis is time-consuming. Completeness, captured as hierarchical and sequential completeness, is a more differentiated way of analyzing the preconditions of work than the predominant measure of autonomy that is favoured by group researchers (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; Stewart, 2006). Further, previous research has predominantly studied complexity as a subjective measure and in terms of autonomy and not as cognitive demand (for reviews, see Kozlowski and Bell, 2003; Stewart, 2006; West et al., 2004). Autonomy is related but different to cognitive demand. Groups with work tasks that differ in cognitive demand, differ in reexivity and learning processes. The jobs inherent learning opportunities impact on group processes as well. In this study, group composition in terms of group members formal education, work experience, and organizational age, is not related to reexivity and learning processes. According to management in the four companies, decisions of group composition were in no case taken on the basis of individual differences in reexivity. A selection process in the recruitment of group members could, however, explain differences between groups in reexivity and learning processes. Bergmann and Richter (2003) discuss selection processes in relation to learning at work and show that differences in learning at work can be explained by differences in working conditions. Experiences at work not only have an immediate impact on work-related behaviour, wellbeing, and health, but generalize through socialization at work into attitudes and behaviours away from work (Kohn and Schooler, 1973, 1978, 1982). The participation rate in this study was very high due to data collection during work time. Participation was voluntary but the motivation to participate and ll in the questionnaire might have been affected by the alternative, to go back to work. Sample size is of course the major drawback in this study as it affects the reliability of the path-analysis, and the possibility to generalize the results as well. What should be expected from group work at the shop-oor level? Productivity and stipulated work being performed under good working conditions, or a qualitatively different work, characterized by groups going beyond the stipulated task and doing more? Many managers would probably be happier with the latter. Some expect it and are surprised to nd that their work groups most often did not turn into creative and innovative groups. We suggest that one reason for this is that responsible functions for production planning dene and focus on productivity to such an extent that the preconditions for other effects are not created. The expected results of group work need to be differentiated and discussed in relation to what it takes in production planning to enhance them. There are basically two entries to enhance the effects of group work; to provide the group with preconditions that we know impact on group effectiveness and/or to stimulate group processes. Those who are involved in creating preconditions for group work need rstly to be aware of the preconditions for group work and how they interact with group processes and the results. Secondly, when preconditions are changed to raise productivity or for any other reason, this change will affect the long-term outcomes of group work and decision-makers need to be aware of this. Thirdly, in the process of designing the job, all functions in charge of and affected by production planning need to be involved to balance long- and short-term goal conicts, and conicts between demand on productivity and demand on innovation and change.

Job design for learning in work groups 279

JWL 19,5

280

Functions close to the production, functions responsible for production planning, management and the work groups need to be involved in this. Seibert (1999) differentiates between two kinds of reection as means of learning from experiences in the workplace structured reections and reection-in-action. West et al. (2004) recommend that teams stop working in order to enhance reexivity. Hackman (1992) recommends appointment of a group supervisor or team coach with the specic task of developing meta-routines. Managers have an important task to provide both a space and a climate that supports reexivity and questioning. This will, however, pave the way for discussions that may raise provocative questions and criticism. A task for future research is to further explore the relations between job design, group processes, group initiative and performance as innovative work.
References Antoni, C. (2005), Management by objectives an effective tool for teamwork?, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, pp. 174-84. Bergmann, B. and Richter, F. (2003), Beruiche Kompetenzentwicklung in der Varenderten Arbeitswelt (Vocational competence development in the new working life), in Richter, P. and Westhoff, K. (Eds), Wirtschaftspsychologie Flexibilisierung der Arbeit, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich. Boud, D. and Middleton, H. (2003), Learning from others at work: communities of practice and informal learning, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 15, pp. 192-202. Brodbeck, F.C. (1996), Criteria for the study of work group functioning, in West, M.A. (Ed.) Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 283-315. Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50. Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M. and Medsker, G.J. (1996), Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 429-51. Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop oor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 239-90. Daudelin, M.W. (1996), Learning from experience through reection, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 36-48. Driver, M. (2003), Diversity and learning in groups, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10, pp. 149-66. Druskat, V.U. (2000), Learning versus performance in short-term project teams, Small Group Research, Vol. 31, pp. 328-53. Dunckel, H. and Volpert, W. (1993), Die Verantwortung der Arbeitspsycholog(inn)en in der interdisziplinaren Kooperation (The responsibility of work psychologists in interdisciplinary co operation), in Bungard, W. and Hermann, T. (Eds), Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Grundlagen-orientierung und Anwendung, Hans Huber, Bern, pp. 339-55. Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83. Fay, D. and Freese, M. (2001), The concept of personal initiative: an overview of validity studies, Human Performance, Vol. 14, pp. 97-124.

Frese, M. and Zapf, D. (1994), Helping to improve suggestion systems: predictors of making suggestions in companies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 1139-55. Gersick, C.J.G. and Hackman, J.R. (1990), Habitual routines in task-performing groups, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47, pp. 65-97. Gladstein, D.L. (1984), Groups in context: a model and task group effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 499-517. Hacker, W. (2001), Activity theory, in Smelser, N.J. and Baltes, P.B. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 58-62. Hacker, W. (2003), Action regulation theory: a practical tool for the design of modern work processes?, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 105-30. Hackman, J.R. (1987), The design of work teams, in Lorsch, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42. Hackman, J.R. (1992), Group inuences on individuals in organizations, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 199-267. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Models with SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientic Software International, Chicago, IL. Klein, K. and Kozlowski, S. (2000), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1973), Occupational experience and psychological functioning: an assessment of reciprocal effects, American Sociological Review, Vol. 38, pp. 97-118. Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1978), The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual exibility: a longitudinal assessment, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, pp. 24-52. Kohn, M.L. and Schooler, C. (1982), Job conditions and personality: a longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1257-83. Kozlowski, S.W. and Bell, B.S. (2003), Work groups and teams in organizations, in Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 333-75. berblick aus Lantz, A. (1995), Gruppenarbeit in der Schwedischen Industri. Ein Forschungsu sozialpsychologischer Perspektive (Work groups in Swedish industry a literature review), Arbeit Zeitschrift fur Arbeitsforschung, Arbeitsgestaltung und Arbeitspolitik, Vol. 2, pp. 142-69. Lantz, A. and Laamme, L. (1996), Leadership, social support and work inuence, Industrial Relations, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 693-724. Lorenz, E. and Velayre, A. (2003), Organizational change in Europe: national models or the diffusion of a new one best way, paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting on Socio-Economics, Aix-en-Provence, June. McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Matsson, I.-B. (2001), Reektion och larande i arbetsgrupper, (Reexivity and learning in work groups), unpublished Masters thesis, Malardalens hogskola, Department of Social Science, Eskilstuna. Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Cambridge, MA.

Job design for learning in work groups 281

JWL 19,5

282

North, K., Friedrich, P. and Lantz, A. (2005), Kompetenzentwicklung zur Selbstorganisation (To develop competencies into self-organizational work), in Erpenbeck, F. (Ed.), Kompetenzesmessung in Unternehmen, Waxmann, Munster, pp. 601-70. Richter, P., Hemman, E. and Pohlandt, A. (1999), Objective task analysis and the prediction of mental workload: results of the application of an action-oriented software tool (REBA), in Wiethoff, M. and Zijlstra, F.R.H. (Eds), New Approaches for Modern Problems in Work Psychology, WORC Report 99.10.001, University Press, Tilburg, pp. 67-76. Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2004), A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Seibert, K.W. (1999), Reection-in-action: tools for cultivating on-the-job learning conditions, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 54-65. Smith, R.M. (1996), Learning to learn. Adult education, in Tuijnman, A.C. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Adult Education and Training, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 418-22. Stewart, G.L. (2006), A meta-analytical review of relationships between team design features and team performance, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 29-54. Ulich, E. (1990), Arbeitspsychologie (Work Psychology), Poeschel, Stuttgart. Ulich, E. and Weber, W.G. (1996), Dimensions, criteria and evaluation of work group autonomy, in West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 247-82. Volpert, W., Oesterreich, R., Gablenz-Kolovic, S., Krogoll, T. and Resh, M. (1983), Verfahren zur Ermittlung von Regulationserfordernissen in der Arbeitstatigkeit (VERA), (A Method to Assess Demand on Regulation in Work), Handbuch und Manual, TUV Rheinland, Cologne. West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A. and Shipton, H. (2004), Twelve steps to heaven: successfully managing change through developing innovative teams, European Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 269-99. West, M.A., Tjosvold, D. and Smith, K.G. (2003), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Co-operative Working, Wiley, Chichester.

Appendix 1. Items and scales in the REBA (REchnergestutztes Dialogverfahren zur psychologischen Bewertung von Arbeitsinhalten) instrument Organizational and technological conditions determining the completeness of work (Completeness) The dimension captures the completeness of work in 13 variables. (1) Number of tasks (number of differently demanding sub-activities) (1 one sub-activity to 4 more than ve sub-activities). (2) Sequential completeness (Cyclic or sequential completeness of the work structure and existence of sub-activities in executing, preparing, controlling and organizing) (1 executing to 4 executing, preparing, controlling and organizing). (3) Organizing functions (the scope and content of organizational functions assigned to the employee) (1 no organizing functions, to 5 work assignment includes organization and contacts with employees/groups/divisions at upper and/or lower level). (4) Cycle length (amount of recurring performances in a working day) (1 approximately every minute, to 7 no recurrences in a working day). (5) Information about the organization (scope of required information about the work organization) (1 information about the work organization at the employees own work station, to 3 additional information about the overall organization of the production in the company).

(6) Information about results (scope of required information about work results) (1 information about the result of the employees own work, to 3 information about the results of anticipated and performed, earlier, later or parallel work, at upper and lower levels). (7) Feedback (differentiation of feedback with regard to the quality) (1 no feedback about the quality, to 5 immediate feedback about the kind and frequency of particular errors). (8) Predictability (anticipation of action demands) (1 events that call for an action that cannot be anticipated, to 4 the kind/or the scope of the required action can be anticipated). (9) Temporal degrees of freedom (technical or organizational conditional agreements for scheduling the own activities) (1 no temporal degree of freedom: extremely close temporal binding up to the operations and very short time spans, to 5 the scheduling at work is to a great extent arbitrary). (10) Procedural degrees of freedom (to what extent the employee modies the procedures to achieve the task according to the demands) (1 no procedural degrees of freedom except the decision between adopting or refusing the assignment, to 6 degrees of freedom with respect to sequence of sub-activities, methods, tools, features or the result, and for independent nding of tasks). (11) Decision demand (possible or required decision-making. Impact of the decisions on the achievement of the assignment) (1 no decision possible, to 5 decisions are required; the alternatives differ from each other with regard to their effectiveness. The consequences are not obvious but require deductions and calculations). (12) Variety of movements (physical variety of work activities; variety of postures and movement patterns) (1 both movements and postures are monotonous, to 4 both movements and postures are varying). (13) Conict quality/quantity (goal conicts) (1 work assignment and the organizational/technological conditions always comprise the risk of contradictory demands (permanent goal conicts), to 3 the task and the organizational and technological conditions do not comprise contradictions (no goal conict)). Demand on cooperation Describes in three variables to what extent the tasks are of a cooperative nature. (14) Amount of cooperation (time frame of daily-required cooperation and communication with subordinate, fellow workers and superiors) (1 cooperation and communication is never or rarely required, to 5 cooperation and communication is required for the achievement of the assignment for more than two hours per shift). (15) Forms of cooperation (types of required cooperation/communication) (1 isolated individual work without cooperation or communication, to 9 self organized group work with regard to the schedule, methods of work, division of work, and an agreement on the task and the goals). (16) Contents of communication (content of work-related cooperation/communication) (1 no cooperation/communication, to 6 cooperation=communication for solving problems, and a single solution has to be found in face of different points of view). Demand on responsibility Describes in two variables the responsibility for the fullment of a complete work structure. (17) Content of responsibility (individual responsibility in terms of morally and legally specied liability) (1 no explicitly assigned individual responsibility, to 5

Job design for learning in work groups 283

JWL 19,5

284

responsibility for quantity and the quality of employees own work with consequences for the wages and/or social appraisal, responsibility for materials, the work process and responsibility for the safety and health of other people). (18) Group responsibility (joint responsibility for performance outcome) (1 the responsibility for performance is solely individually based, to 4 the attribution of responsibilities takes place through a collective appraisal of the individual contributions to the groups performance; the group as a whole is completely responsible for the result). Cognitive demand Describes in two variables to what extent the tasks demand cognitive activities. (19) Degree of participation (level of participation in operational planning processes with regard to the work system) (1 no participation, to 7 implementing solutions in the practice, selections of solutions, transforming information into solutions, evaluating the information, collection of information, and problem denition and setting objectives). (20) Level of mental demands (required cognitive performance) (1 task requires only sensory motor regulation, to 9 creative thinking process). Learning opportunities Describes in two variables the extent of continuous learning demands. (21) Use of qualications (rate of the performances that demand the expected qualication level) (1 the qualication is partly used in the activity, and there is a risk of forgetting qualication areas, to 5 the qualication is used in the activity, and it is improbable that limited qualication areas are forgotten). (22) Learning potential (frequency and content of job-related learning demands) (1 after acquiring the expected qualication, there are no permanent learning demands, to 4 the activity requires a continuous enhancement of abilities and skills). Source: adapted from Pohlandt et al. (2003). Appendix 2. Items in the questionnaire All responses were given on seven-point scales, ranging from 1 do not agree at all to 7 agree entirely. Reexivity and learning processes (1) In our team we arrange meetings to develop new ideas together. (2) Our team frequently seeks new information that leads us to make important changes. (3) In our team, someone always makes sure that we stop to reect on the teams work process. (4) People in our team often speak up to test assumptions about issues under discussion. (5) We invite people from outside the team to present information and to have discussions about improvements. (6) I often discuss experiences from work with the members of our team. (7) The members of our team discuss how important it is to gain new knowledge. (8) Our team often arranges meetings to have discussions with other work groups. Work routines (9) It is clear what our team is supposed to accomplish. (10) Our team spends time making sure every team member understands the team objectives.

(11) Our team has invested plenty of time in clarifying our goals. (12) In our team we inform each other about our tasks in order to achieve a higher quality of work. (13) We continuously share information with other groups. (14) Everyone in our team does his/her fair share of the work. (15) Nearly all the members in our team contribute equally to the work. (16) Members of our team are very willing to share information with other team members about our work. (17) Our team enhances communication among people working on the same product. (18) Members of our team cooperate to get the work done. (19) My fellow workers inform me of conditions that may be of importance for my work. (20) Team members go out and obtain all the information they possibly can from others such as customers, or other parts of the organization. Social routines (21) Being in my team gives me the opportunity to work in a team and provide support to other team members. (22) I have the opportunity to talk about difculties in my work with my fellow workers. (23) My fellow workers give me the encouragement and support that I need. (24) If you make a mistake in our team, it is often held against you. (25) Members of our team are able to bring up problems and tough issues. (26) It is safe to take a risk in our team. (27) No one in our team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts. (28) Working with members of our team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.

Job design for learning in work groups 285

Corresponding author Annika Lantz can be contacted at: annika.lantz@psyk.uu.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints