Rediseño de tareas, satisfacción y rendimientoUn estudio en la industria de la automoción

  1. Osca Segovia, Amparo
  2. Urién Angulo, M. Begoña
Revista:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Ano de publicación: 2001

Volume: 17

Número: 3

Páxinas: 327-340

Tipo: Artigo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Resumo

According to the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980), autonomy, significance, variety, standardization and feedback influence worker satisfaction and performance, this paper describes an experience of introducing work groups in automotive industry, examining the impact of task characteristics on three indicators of maintenance (job satisfaction, interest in the new system and perception of change), and on performance assessed by means of four objective indicators (quantity, quality, costs and TPM). In addition to variables used in Hackman and Oldham´s Model, the workload is examined as a variable likely to create negative attitudes in workers. As expected, regression analysis indicates that task characteristics explain a great deal of attitudinal variables variance, particularly autonomy and feedback. Nevertheless, none of the task characteristics shows any relationship to the performance indicators used. Finally, some intervention proposals for organizational environments are made.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Algera, J.A. 1998. Task Characteristics. En P.J.D. Drenth, H. Thierry y C.J. de Wolff (eds.). Handbook of work and Orga nizational Psychology. (4): 123-139. Sussex, U.K.: Psychology Press.
  • Banker, F., Field, J.M., Schroeder, R.G. y Sinha, K.K. 1996. Impact of Work Teams on Manufacturing Performance: A Longitudinal Field Study. Academy Mana gement Journal, 39 (4): 867-890.
  • Berlinger, L.R., Glick, W.H., y Rodges, R.C. 1988. Job Enrichment and Performance Improvements. En J. P. Campbell y R. J. Campbell (eds.), Productivity in Organizations. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
  • Blanco, A. 1989. La perspectiva histórica en el estudio de los grupos. En C. Huici (dir.) Psicología de los grupos. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G.J. y Higgs, A.C. 1993. Relations between Work Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
  • Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M. y Medsker, G.J. 1996. Relations Between Work Team Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extension, Personnel Psy chology, 49, 429-452.
  • Cummings, T. y Molloy, E.S. 1 9 7 7 . Improving Productivity and the Quality of Work Life. Nueva York, Praeger Publishers.
  • Fried, Y. y Ferris, G. 1987. The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A Review and Meta-Análisis. Personnel Psy chology, 40: 287-322.
  • Gupta, Y. y Ash, D.C. 1994. Excellence at Rohm and Haas Kentucky: a case study of work-team introduction in manufacturing. Production and Operations Manage ment, 3(3): 86-200.
  • Guzzo, R.A. y Dickinson, M.W. 1.996. Teams in Organisations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness. Annual Review. Al , 47: 307-338.
  • Guzzo, R.A. y Shea, G.P. 1992. Group Performance and Intergroup Relations in Organizations. En M.D. Dunnette y L.M. Hough (eds). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 3: 269- 313. Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Lawler, E.E III. 1971. Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology , 55, 259-286.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Oldham, G.R. 1974. The Job Diagnostic Survey: An Instrument for the Diagnostic of Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Redesing Projects. National Technical Information Service. U.S., 87.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the Desing of Work: Test of a Theory Organizational. Behavior and Human Performance, 60: 157-170.
  • Hackman, J.R. y Oldham, G.R. 1980. Work Redesing, Reading, M.A. AddisonWesley.
  • Herzberg, F. 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing.
  • Ilgen, D.R. y Hollenbeck, J.R. 1992. The Structure of Work: Job Design and Roles. En M.D. Dunette y L.M. Hough (eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Orga nization Psychology. Vol. 3, 165-207. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychology Press.
  • Kelly, J. 1992. Does Job Re-Desing Theory Explain Job ReDesing Outcomes? Human Relations, 45 (8), 753-774.
  • Lawler, E.E III, Mohrman, S.A. y Ledford, G.E. 1995. Creating High Perfor mance Organizations. Practices and Results of Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management in Fortune 1000 Companies. Association for Quality and Participation. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
  • MacDuffie, J.P. 1995. Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 48 (2), 197-221.
  • Manz, Ch.C. 1990. Beyond Self-Managing Work Teams: Toward Self-Leading Teams in the Workplace. Research in Organizational Change and Development. 4, 273-299.
  • Moreland, R.L., Levine, J.M. y Wingert, M.L. 1996. Creating the ideal Group: Composition Effects at Work. En E. Witte y J.M. Davis (eds.): Understanding Group Behaviour, Vol. 2. Mahwah, J.J. Lawrence Erlbaun.
  • Neal, A. y Hesketh, B. 2001. Productivity in Organizations. En N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil y Ch. Viswesvaran (eds) Hanbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol 2: 7-24. London: Sage Publications.
  • Oldham, G.R. y Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Manage ment Journal, Vol. 39, 3, 607- 28.
  • Parker, S.K. y Wall, T.D. 1988. Job and Work Desing: Organizing Work to Promo te Well-being and Effectiveness. CA: Sage.
  • Pérez Quintana, F. 1988. Evaluación Organizacional de un Hospital. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife.
  • Sarries, L. 1994. Los Nuevos Modelos de Organización Empresarial y la Recuali ficación de los Puestos de Trabajo en la Industria Navarra. Análisis del Sector Automoción y Electrodomésticos. Navarra Consultores de Comunicación. Gobierno de Navarra, Departamento de Industria, Comercio, Turismo y Trabajo, Pamplona.
  • Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P. y Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45 (2): 120-133.
  • Suzaki, K. 1987. The New Manufactu ring Workplace: Techniques for Conti nuous Improvement. NewYork: Free P r e s s .
  • Trist, E.L. 1981. The evolution of socio technical systems: a conceptual framework and action research program. Ontario: Quality of Working Life Centre.
  • Turner, A.N. y Lawrence, P.R. 1965. Industrial Jobs and The Worker: an Inves tigation of Response to Task Attributes. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.
  • Urien, B. y Osca, A. 2001. Cambios en las tareas y su repercusión en la satisfacción laboral. Revista de Psicología Social, 16, 3, 315-330.
  • Van de Ven, A. y Ferris, D.L. 1980. Measuring and Assessing Organizations. Nueva York, Wiley.
  • Van Eijnatten, F.M., 1998. Work Groups. En P.J.D. Drenth, H. Thierry y C.J. de Wolff (eds.). Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology . Vol. 4: 61-88. Sussex, U.K: Psychology Press.
  • Yeatts, D.E. y Hyten, C. 1998. High Performing Self-Managed Work Teams. A Comparison of Theory to Practice. California: Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet