Zusammenfassung
Digitalisierung, flexible Märkte, neue Technologien und innovative Formen der Zusammenarbeit stellen Arbeitgeber/innen vor wachsende Herausforderungen. Doch wie begegnen wir diesen Herausforderungen und welche Möglichkeiten der Arbeitsplatzgestaltung gibt es? Basierend auf dem Anforderungen Ressourcen Modell (ARM) stellt dieser Beitrag ein simulationsbasiertes Training vor, in dem Teilnehmende die Auswirkungen unterschiedlicher Arbeitsplatzmerkmale erleben. Wir testen Annahmen des ARM, das davon ausgeht, dass anforderungsvolle Tätigkeiten mit hohem Gestaltungsspielraum die Erschöpfung von Mitarbeitenden abpuffern können (Puffer Hypothese) und gleichzeitig zu mehr Arbeitsengagement führen (Aktives Lernen Hypothese). Wir testen die Annahmen im Rahmen einer Arbeitsplatzsimulation, bei der Teilnehmende Eiscreme-Becher gestalten und produzieren müssen. Unsere Ergebnisse unterstützen die Pufferhypothese des ARM, aber nicht die Hypothese des Aktiven Lernens. Die Diskussion erörtert wie Arbeitsplatzsimulationen von Personalverantwortlichen, und Organisationsentwicklern/innen genutzt werden können und welchen Mehrwert dies für Organisationen bietet.
Abstract
Digitalisation, flexible job markets, new technologies and innovative forms of collaboration constitute increasing challenges for employers and the design of modern work. But how can we deal with these challenges and what do we know about the effect of good versus bad work design? Based on the job demands-resources model (JRM), we present a simulation-based training during which participants experience the effects of different work characteristics. We focus on the moderating effects of job control and job demands: The JRM assumes that job demands and job control interactively affect employee exhaustion and work engagement: Jobs with high control can buffer the strain-enhancing effect of job demands (buffer hypothesis) and increase work engagement (active learning hypothesis). We test these hypotheses in a workplace simulation during which participants have to produce ice-cream. Our results support the buffer hypothesis but not the active learning hypothesis. We discuss the added value of work design simulations for organisations, practitioners, and HR professionals.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Literatur
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.
Cho, H. C., & Abe, S. (2013). Is two-tailed testing for directional research hypotheses tests legitimate? Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1261–1266.
Cranford, J. A., Shrout, P. E., Iida, M., Rafaeli, E., Yip, T., & Bolger, N. (2006). A procedure for evaluating sensitivity to within-person change: Can mood measures in diary studies detect change reliably? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 917–929.
Dessers, E., De Kort, L., & Van Hootegem, G. (2016). Care jobs: an educational game on job quality in chronic care settings. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 2(2), 65–80.
Donovan, K. M., & Fluegge-Woolf, E. R. (2015). Under construction: an experiential exercise illustrating elements of work design. Journal of Management Education, 39(2), 276–296.
Fornaciari, C. J., & Dean, K. L. (2005). Experiencing organizational work design: beyond Hackman and Oldham. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 631–653.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Häusser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: a review of recent research on the job demand-control (‑support) model and psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1–35.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.
Karasek Jr, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A., Houtman, I. L., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). „The very best of the millennium“: longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282–305.
Magpili, N. C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-managing team performance: a systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3–33.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 661–691.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3), 633–662.
Parker, S. K., Morgeson, F. P., & Johns, G. (2017a). One hundred years of work design research: looking back and looking forward. Journal of Aplied Psychology, 102(3), 403–420.
Parker, S. K., Van den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. (2017b). Work design influences: a synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 267–308.
Pejtersen, J. H., Kristensen, T. S., Borg, V., & Bjorner, J. B. (2010). The second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3), 8–24.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
Smrt, D. L., & Nelson, R. E. (2013). Playing with a concept: teaching job characteristics model with a Tinkertoy® builder set. Journal of Management Education, 37(4), 539–561.
Danksagung
Die Autoren danken Dr. Valerie O’Keeffe und Dr. Wes McTernan von der University of South Australia für die Bereitstellung der Instruktionsmaterialien zur Durchführung der Eiscreme Fabrik Simulation sowie Lizzy Smith und Ele Weber der Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia für die Unterstützung bei der Durchführung der Simulation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Caption Electronic Supplementary Material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klonek, F.E., Parker, S. Teil-autonome Arbeitsteams oder tayloristische Produktionslinie? Welche Erkenntnisgewinne bieten simulationsbasierte Work Design Trainings. Gr Interakt Org 49, 167–175 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-018-0410-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-018-0410-1
Schlüsselwörter
- Arbeitsgestaltung
- Anforderungen Ressourcen Modell
- Teilautonome Arbeitsgruppen
- Erschöpfung
- Arbeitsengagement