把创可贴贴在木腿上:从社会技术角度看,权力下放的成功尝试增加了工作自主权

IF 1.6 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Lander Vermeerbergen, G. Hootegem, J. Benders
{"title":"把创可贴贴在木腿上:从社会技术角度看,权力下放的成功尝试增加了工作自主权","authors":"Lander Vermeerbergen, G. Hootegem, J. Benders","doi":"10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose \n \n \n \n \nDecentralisation attempts that aim to increase job autonomy do not always succeed. This paper aims to study to what extent the tendency to maintain existing operational task divisions is an important explanation for this lack of success. \n \n \n \n \nDesign/methodology/approach \n \n \n \n \nIn total, 456 employees in 25 organisations participated in a cross-sectional intervention study. Each employee filled out a questionnaire on job autonomy both before and after the decentralisation process, in which all organisations shifted regulatory, preparatory and supportive tasks to the lowest organisational level. \n \n \n \n \nFindings \n \n \n \n \nThis study found small, but significant, effects of decentralisation attempts on job autonomy. The size of the effects, however, depended on the way the way in which the operational tasks were divided. Simultaneously, larger effects were found for organisations which decentralised tasks and changed the way operational tasks were divided. Both findings reached the conclusion that although decentralisation attempts seemed important for increasing job autonomy, the way in which the operational tasks were divided and even changed, was at least as important for a successful decentralisation process. \n \n \n \n \nOriginality/value \n \n \n \n \nAfter decades of research on modern sociotechnical theory, this study is the first to show that decentralisation attempts do not merely increase job autonomy. The effect of such attempts depends on the way in which operational tasks are divided in organisations.","PeriodicalId":46084,"journal":{"name":"Team Performance Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting a band-aid on a wooden leg: A sociotechnical view on the success of decentralisation attempts to increase job autonomy\",\"authors\":\"Lander Vermeerbergen, G. Hootegem, J. Benders\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDecentralisation attempts that aim to increase job autonomy do not always succeed. This paper aims to study to what extent the tendency to maintain existing operational task divisions is an important explanation for this lack of success. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nDesign/methodology/approach \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nIn total, 456 employees in 25 organisations participated in a cross-sectional intervention study. Each employee filled out a questionnaire on job autonomy both before and after the decentralisation process, in which all organisations shifted regulatory, preparatory and supportive tasks to the lowest organisational level. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nFindings \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nThis study found small, but significant, effects of decentralisation attempts on job autonomy. The size of the effects, however, depended on the way the way in which the operational tasks were divided. Simultaneously, larger effects were found for organisations which decentralised tasks and changed the way operational tasks were divided. Both findings reached the conclusion that although decentralisation attempts seemed important for increasing job autonomy, the way in which the operational tasks were divided and even changed, was at least as important for a successful decentralisation process. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nOriginality/value \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nAfter decades of research on modern sociotechnical theory, this study is the first to show that decentralisation attempts do not merely increase job autonomy. The effect of such attempts depends on the way in which operational tasks are divided in organisations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Team Performance Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Team Performance Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Team Performance Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-03-2015-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

旨在增加工作自主权的权力下放尝试并不总是成功。本文旨在研究维持现有作战任务划分的倾向在多大程度上是这种缺乏成功的重要解释。设计/方法/方法共有25个组织的456名员工参与了横断面干预研究。在下放过程之前和之后,每个员工都填写了一份关于工作自主权的问卷,在下放过程中,所有组织都将监管、准备和支持任务转移到最低的组织层面。这项研究发现,权力下放对工作自主性的影响虽小,但意义重大。然而,影响的大小取决于操作任务的划分方式。与此同时,分散任务和改变业务任务划分方式的组织也受到了更大的影响。这两项研究都得出了这样的结论:尽管权力下放的尝试似乎对增加工作自主权很重要,但业务任务的划分甚至改变方式,至少对成功的权力下放过程同样重要。在对现代社会技术理论进行了数十年的研究之后,这项研究首次表明,权力下放的尝试不仅会增加工作的自主性。这种尝试的效果取决于组织中运营任务的划分方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting a band-aid on a wooden leg: A sociotechnical view on the success of decentralisation attempts to increase job autonomy
Purpose Decentralisation attempts that aim to increase job autonomy do not always succeed. This paper aims to study to what extent the tendency to maintain existing operational task divisions is an important explanation for this lack of success. Design/methodology/approach In total, 456 employees in 25 organisations participated in a cross-sectional intervention study. Each employee filled out a questionnaire on job autonomy both before and after the decentralisation process, in which all organisations shifted regulatory, preparatory and supportive tasks to the lowest organisational level. Findings This study found small, but significant, effects of decentralisation attempts on job autonomy. The size of the effects, however, depended on the way the way in which the operational tasks were divided. Simultaneously, larger effects were found for organisations which decentralised tasks and changed the way operational tasks were divided. Both findings reached the conclusion that although decentralisation attempts seemed important for increasing job autonomy, the way in which the operational tasks were divided and even changed, was at least as important for a successful decentralisation process. Originality/value After decades of research on modern sociotechnical theory, this study is the first to show that decentralisation attempts do not merely increase job autonomy. The effect of such attempts depends on the way in which operational tasks are divided in organisations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
29.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: This international journal contributes to the successful implementation and development of work teams and team-based organizations by providing a forum for sharing experience and learning to stimulate thought and transfer of ideas. It seeks to bridge the gap between research and practice by publishing articles where the claims are evidence-based and the conclusions have practical value. Effective teams form the heart of every successful organization. But team management is one of the hardest challenges faced by managers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信