The research result shows that technologies result in changes in the overall job design, and in learning opportunities that enhance human development. They may even reduce stress at work in the long run. In several studies where an impairment of well-being and health was found, it could be traced to problems of the strategy and process of the implementation. The impairment does not primarily result from technology, but from job design changes and excessive demands, or insufficient knowledge and education of the users But from many studies we also know that the inadequate ergonomic design of hardware or software may lead to negative stress reactions. Therefore, a safe strategy seems to be to apply a holistic approach which integrates prevention of all major problems and risk factors, especially: (i) a participative design of the innovation tempo and implementation process, user oriented hardware and software design together with a stress reducing job design and an adequate training programme, a personal help network system and a self-organizing knowledge management concept. The ideal vision is a learning organization whose members are able to actively design and manage all current and future technological and job changes. In the following subsections we will outline important aspects of the four components of our holistic approach.
Implementation Strategies
Field surveys and practical observations show that systematic implementation strategies of new computer technologies are rare (Bjørn-Andersen, 1985; Dzida et al., 1984; Hirschheim et al., 1985). As mentioned above, organizations often simply try to buy and apply the “best” technological system and “muddle through” the resulting organizational problems (Greif, 1991b).
We advocate the following strategy for implementation: 1. detailed information in advance; 2. active partcipation in the selection and (re)design of hardware and software; 3. active participation in task and job redesign; 4. learning to master the changes.
Detailed Information in Advance
Planned technological changes put many people into a state of uncertainty which can be accompanied by strong emotional reactions. Many questions arise concerning the consequences of the changes. They should be answered by credible and concrete information which shows how it will be possible to manage the demands step by step successfully.
Typical concrete questions are:
Is my job still safe after the change or will technological rationalization render it obsolete? Will I be able to master or learn the new technology? Who will help me if I need help? What will happen if I am unable to adapt to these changes or less able than my colleagues? Which of my basic tasks and responsibilities will change? How about stress at work? How can I cope with any problem while learning the new technology and doing my work, at the same time? Will time pressure increase? Is there enough space for the new hardware and where will it be placed? Will the firm buy good ergonomic and easy to use systems?
The management should be prepared to give clear and satisfactory answers to such questions at the start of the change process. Personal explanation by colleagues and illustrative models are better than written official announcements or information transfer in large conferences. Change anxiety and stress will not be reduced by information which is subjectively rated as not reliable and credible. To attempt to hush up existing high risks is itself a risky strategy. People do not forget false predictions in such situations. It is easy to lose long-term credibility after such an attempt. It would be better to give reliable information about risks and combine it with an optimistic and courageous personal statement saying that it will be possible to manage the risks. In cases where the future consequences are unpredictable and really dangerous, it is often better for the whole organization to find a small team of volunteers to start a pilot study to test the consequences.
Model launch in the car industry is an example of complex technological changes in the production lines. Since new car models in the past were normally kept top secret, the car workers were not informed about the future job changes. Hofmann & Bungard (1995) have demonstrated the advantages of giving concrete information in advance regarding car model changes at different automobile plants. Before the start all workers were invited to inspect the new model and plans (after signing an obligation of secrecy). The results were very convincing. Nearly all workers turned up and participated willingly in the change processes. Many were even filled with enthusiasm about the future changes. The whole process was less stressful, with fewer conflicts, and was substantially shorter than any technological change in the companies before. This example shows that investing in concrete information in advance pays, reducing typical insecurities and negative attitudes of the people involved.
Active participation in the Selection and (Re)design of Hardware and Software
Adequate information in advance and positive attitudes towards technological changes promote active participation in the start-up phase of change. If possible, the people affected should participate in the selection of hardware and software for their future tasks.Apossible way is to send a delegation of workers to an engineering fair or invite companies to stage an exhibition of different hardware and software systems for the people in the enterprise. This procedure not only helps to reduce psychological uncertainty but also supports better decisions based on the practical knowledge of the people involved. The retail companies are confronted with the concrete practical demands of the users before the sale is effected. As a result, the hardware and software may have to be redesigned according to these demands before the application.
Active Participation in Task and Job Redesign
The application of computer-based technologies, at least in the long run, is nearly always followed by changes of tasks, and sometimes even by changes of jobs and whole organization processes and structures. Active participation in job and task redesign is a strategy that helps to avoid insecurity and any opposition that may result from unknown future changes. A further advantage of active participation is that the practical expert knowledge of the people affected by the changes can be used in the process of job and task redesign .
Participation is rarely an easy process. Especially where the expected technological and organizational changes are large and where people see a risk of losing their acquired status, discussions between management and employees or group members with different interests can raise or enlarge conflicts. Our experience is that in such situations it seems to be preferable to apply a systematic strategy. The steps of the strategy have to be adapted to the management and to employee demands and competences. The following seven-step partcipation strategy gives an example which according to our experience works with an organization whose management and employees are open for participation.
1. Start-up information presented by the management and discussion of the goals, financial aspects and policy scope of the management decisions.
2. Individual interviews with active organizational members selected from all levels and departments involved (personal information, inventory and scaling of present tasks, expected advantages and disadvantages of new technology, threats and problems, suggestions for improvements and conflict resolutions).
3. Parallel workshop discussions about the interview results with the top management, the works council and the organizational members (problems, threats or conflicts and, especially, suggestions for their resolution should be described as clearly as possible).
4. Decision by top management on the redefinition of the goals and scope for the resulting participative problem solving process.
5. Establishment of one or more small problem solving groups (experts from all relevant departments and different opinions) for the development of solutions.
6. Parallel workshop discussions about of the solutions (management, works council and organizational members), leading to further suggestions for improvements.
7. Management decision on the planned changes and information of the employees.
The role of psychologists and consultants of other disciplines who accompany the process is that of process and project management coaches. They should try to help the participants to cope with stressful situations typical to many change processes: extreme complexity, high time urgency and power conflicts. They should also try to solve communication problems and should create the best possible team atmosphere to promote mutual information, trust, constructive participation, self-efficacy and common problem solving. Often for the survival of the organization in conjunction with the new technology very radical changes of key processes and structures in the organization are necessary which go beyond task and job changes. Important among other factors (Boonstra, in press; Greif et al., 1998) in complex change management processes are refined and effective change management team organizations, and specialized professional knowledge. The steps of the change management process may be similar to technology and task changes, but a systematic education in project management, instruments of analysis, problem solving techniques and perhaps stress management techniques would be useful for the team members.
Learning to Master the Changes
Early research results on success and failure of change management projects show that the risk of failing is very high. A study by Boonstra (2000) on change processes in the Netherlands showed that more than 70% of the change programmes that actually started led to insufficient results. Clegg (2000) reports that the majority of technological change projects do not reach their goals. Failure can result in existential crisis situations and is always an extremely stressful threat for all people involved. Nevertheless technological changes cannot be ignored. At least in the supplier industry, following the international ISO 9000 series, compatible new production and information technology are demanded by the industrial customers. Therefore, learning to master urgent and complex periodical or continuous changes becomes a core competence of the organization members. Where possible, to reduce stress reactions, the organization should start small and manageable change projects applied as pilot learning encounters for future changes.
As the research literature cited above shows, concrete information in advance and active participation in the design of hardware and software, as well as in the design of tasks, and new jobs will help to manage the threats of technological change and its consequences. However, individuals still may remain anxious and may doubt whether they will be able to master the change. Although there are no clear research results indicating substantial anxiety due to technological innovations (K¨uhlmann, 1988), people who fail to master technological change may be concerned about losing their jobs and therefore posssibly will hesitate to admit fears of making errors or of failure and avoid necessary training as long as possible. We describe learning approaches that have been successfully applied in training complex software systems and error management.
Hardware and Software Design
As mentioned above, inappropriate hardware and software design may lead to errors or regulation obstacles and consequently to stress reactions. Therefore the design of usable software may be considered as a means of stress prevention. The design of usable software is the topic of usability engineering (Nielsen, 1993).
Usability engineering is concerned with the systematic integration of methods and techniques of building usable software in the system development process. It can be characterized as a process which covers the definition and the measurement of product usability in general(Wixon&Wilson, 1997, p. 654). Usability engineering requires a software engineering model, which allows revisions and feedback loops. These models include prototyping approaches, iterative system design and user participation (Gould, 1988; Mayhew, 1999, Wixon & Wilson, 1997). Models of usability engineering are often subdivided into three phases (Gould, 1988; Mayhew, 1999; Nielsen, 1993).
Phase 1: Analysis and Specification
The first step—the “gearing-up” phase—starts with preparatory activities, such as choosing general principles for the design, for example, relevant standards, development models and tools. In the next step, the “requirements analysis” is concerned with the characterization of users and the set-up of user profiles; additionally, task and work flow have to be analysed. The obtained information is used to plan the activities of the “work re-engineering” and for the design of the user interface. Phase 2: Iterative Development
The results of the preceeding phase are used to design the organizational and work flow part of the system. In this phase it should be remembered that the design and introduction of computer systems are considered as a part of job design and should therefore be seen in an organizational context (Zapf, 1995, S. 72; see above “Active participation in job and task design”). Conceptual models are developed which can be used to produce early prototyps, for instance paper and pencil prototypes or mock-ups. Using an iterative and participative design approach, the prototypes are evaluated and changed continuously by means of user testing (Rubin, 1994) or inspection methods (Nielsen & Mack, 1994). This helps to identify and remove major usability bugs. The evaluation–(re)design cycle is repeated until the goals of the user-centred design are fulfilled. It is recommended to utilize user participation in all phases of the design process (see ISO/DIS 13407). The product can be evaluated to ascertain whether it fulfils the user-orientated requirements and/or whether it is in accordance with other international standards such as ISO 9241 (for an overview on software evaluation, see Gediga et al., 2002).
Phase 3: System Installation
The final phase is concerned with system installation and user training. Furthermore, the acceptance of the system has to be assured, and system support and maintenance must be organized. Software evaluation procedures in the application phase have to be planned in order to obtain feedback about the usability of the system. This information can be used for the design of new releases. A revision of the system could be indicated after some time of application. In such a case a new version of the software should be designed corresponding to the principles of the phases of usability engineering.
Furthermore, the design of software and especially the human–computer interface should consider knowledge from the research field of human–computer interaction (Helander et al., 1997; Shneiderman, 1998;Wandmacher, 1993).We cannot give a detailed overview at this time but some important design aspects should be mentioned. The design—or redesign—of software systems should avoid too much complexity (Shneiderman, 1998). A reduction of complexity, while maintaining sufficient features of the system, may be achieved by the modularization of the system, for example, into task-related components. Complexity, moreover, may be decreased if software systems are adaptable to task and user requirements (Greif, 1994; Haaks, 1992). To anticipate and minimize errors, a consistent system structure and design, unambiguous and clearly available feedback about the state of the system, and reversiblity of actions should be realized (Brodbeck&Rupietta, 1994; Norman, 1983, 1988; Rasmussen & Vicente, 1989). Zapf (1995) emphasizes that tools supporting error handling can be a contribution to coping with stress. In particular he mentions backup files, undo functions and context-sensitive help.
Hardware and software system design has to be integrated with task, job and organization design. For example, task requirements have to be considered when the functionality of a system is defined.We have applied a combined technique for an intensive micro-analysis and redesign of individual tasks and software systems, called “heterarchic task analysis” (Greif, 1991b; Hamborg & Greif, 1999). Based on logfile records, video (up to three cameras) and self-confronting techniques, the individual mental model of a given task and of the software system, together with associated thoughts, emotional problems and design suggestions are assessed in an interview. The outcome of this analysis provides a starting point for the design or redesign of tasks and software systems. In the future electronic business economy, success of the whole organization will depend on a perfect customer-orientated internet design Especially the design of the human-interface will be crucial in this field. Furthermore, the customers using technologies like the internet will expect high-speed services. Peaks of unpredictable high runs of customers and high time pressure will pose a new challenge to concepts of flexible job and organization design solutions. Perhaps new technologies will be needed to reduce such time pressure in future electronic business firms.
Task and Job Design
Semmer (1984), as menioned in Section 11.2.2 identified three major groups of stressors at work. These can be applied to task and job design:
1. Additional demands on the action regulation process. For example, time pressure should be reduced to a manageable level. For complex tasks a compromise between accessibility to the customer and periods of uninterrupted work should be found. 2. Overload or blurred performance feedback which results in insecurity or insufficient control for the employees. Training the feedback behaviour of leaders is a standard solution to this problem. It is also useful to encourage the employees to demand clear feedback. 3. Conflicting goals or lack of task and role clarity. Sometimes it is a very difficult and time consuming task to design clear quality standards or decision rules in order to reduce conflicts between goals (like time pressure and quality). Total quality management handbooks as an ideal should define such standards and rules, and measurement criteria. But often these handbooks increase stress reactions by impractical demands. If the tasks require adaptive and flexible individual decisions or creativity, it would be better to admit that it is impossible to formulate clear rules. Here open heuristic rules explained by concrete examples and a supportive personal help network (people who can be asked to discuss a decision case) might be a possible solution.
Goal setting is a very well-known management technique, but in practice it is often difficult to operationalize adequate performance goals and therefore feedback becomes difficult too. Here, the construction and implementation of a behaviourally anchored performance feedback system (like ProMES; Pritchard, 1990) may be an optimal basis for both clear goals and feedback.
Warr (1987) in his vitamin model of general environmental influences of work upon mental health describes nine principal features which can be applied to task and job design:
1. Opportunity for control (decision latitude and influence of the employees, to choose their objectives, to schedule their tasks and rules of performance, and to predict the consequences of action). 2. Opportunity for skill use (the degree to which the utilization and development of skills is required by the job).
3. Externally generated goals (the degree to which the environment makes demands upon the employee). 4. Variety (occurence of repetitive and invariant routine actions or diverse and novel situations). 5. Environmental clarity (availability of feedback information about the results of one’s actions, certainty and clarity of role expectations and requirements). 6. Availabilty of money (low or high income). 7. Physical security (protection against physical threat, security of tenure and job safety in the work market). 8. Opportunity for interpersonal contact (loneliness versus friendship contacts, social support, opportunities to compare one’s opinions and abilities with other people). 9. Valued social position (esteem from other people within social networks).
Warr (1987) differentiates between two kinds of relationship between the environmental features and mental health: (i) the first group of features shows a positive effect on health up to a certain level, but not beyond it; (ii) the second group also has a positive effect on health up to a certain point. But after this point the features have a damaging effect on health. Features 6 (availability of money), 7 (physical security) and 9 (valued social position) belong to the first group. All other features can be classified into the second group. Depending on individual differences, these features should not be raised to an extreme demand level in order to avoid harmful consequences. For example, if the maximum individual capacity level of the opportunity for control or for skill is exceeded, this will result in difficult decision making or tasks. The individual will suffer from overload strain.
The research on stress and implementation of newtechnologies and task design mentioned in this post advocates participative strategies. Other authors developed methods and strategies of task and job design, which can be transferred to this field of application. Following Emery & Emery (1976), Ulich (1991) recommends a method called Subjektive Arbeitsanalyse (SAA) (subjective job analysis; Udris & Alioth, 1980). Here the whole process of analysis and task or job redesign is performed by the members of the work groups involved. The group members perform the following four steps, moderated by an expert: 1. Analysis and evaluation of the present work activities by using scales of psychological job dimensions (e.g. decision making, variety, learning, mutual support and respect, meaningfulness, desirable future); 2. development of individual suggestions for improvement; 3. assessment of training demands; 4. development of a group training programme. Ulich and his co-workers (Ulich, 1991) have successfully applied this strategey of active participation to the implementation of team work by semi-autonomous work groups and also to technological changes. The basic assumption of their approach is a holistic design of task and work environments which results in highly motivativated work, efficient and flexible human performance and development, and also in the long run contributes to physical and mental health. The goal is not only to prevent harmful consequences. The vision is to study and support the development of positive human health resources. Rimann & Udris (1997) have constructed a special instrument called Salutogenetische Subjektive Arbeitsanalyse (SALSA) (salutogenetic subjective job analysis, using the Italian word salute, meaning means “health”) for this purpose. It combines typical scales applied in standard instruments of stress orientated job analysis questionnaires and scales for the assessment of organizational resources (task variety, learning demands, decision latitude and control, participation, individual influence on job design, scope to develop personal interests at work) and social resources (social climate, employee orientated leadership behaviour, social support by the leader, social support by the team). The authors recommend applying their instrument as a part of a holistic and multilevel analysis of the work system as well as a participative organizational development concept (Strohm & Ulich, 1997). Other authors also advocate the future integration of stress orientated job analysis and redesign into comprehensive preventive health strategies for the whole organization (Bamberg et al., 1998) or Total Quality Management (Zapf & Dormann, 2001).
Learning Environments, Error Management and Personal Help Networks
After implementation of new technologies, a routine procedure in most organizations is to send the employee to a training seminar in the field. The participants are expected to acquire the knowledge and skills by professional instruction and by feedback from a trainer. In addition, we recommend the design of psychological learning environments, which support active and successful self-organizing learning activities, self-efficacy and self-confidence when interacting with new and sometimes complex or permanently changing technologies. Studies on errors in human–computer interaction (Pr¨umper, 1991) have shown that not only novices but also experts make errors. Errors give rise to quick emotional reactions like anger or even helplessness (Krone et al., 2000). Therefore, it is important to train employees in the detection and management of error situations (Frese, 1991b).
Novices should not always fall back upon their trainer or team when they meet a problem that they can try to manage by themselves. However, if the problem is too complex or if the consequences of errors cannot be eliminated, novices should ask for personal help. Social support is also a potential factor for reducing stress reactions. Like Carroll & Mack (1983), we tried to activate self-organized exploratory behaviour in the learning process using “minimal guidelines” for self-instruction instead of handbooks and teacher centred instruction methods. Since we concentrate especially on the exploration of error situations we call our learning concept “exploratory learning by errors” (Greif, 1986, 1994; for a description and empirical comparison of different error training approaches, see Irmer et al., 1991).
“Make mistakes! You can learn from your mistakes!” is our message at the beginning of a training session. By this we try to encourage our subjects to develop a more relaxed problem solving attitude to error situations and to learn by actively exploring these situations. How the trainer reacts to the first enquiries for help is very important. The learner should develop the impression that his or her errors are interesting and represent important learning opportunities.
It is very impressive to observe how radically the attitudes towards errors change in a course where the trainer reacts sensitively to errors, shows interest, comments on the problem solving strategies, and draws the attention of the other participants to an interesting error situation. The learner who makes an “interesting” error sometimes even seems to be proud of it, openly discussing the problem and testing different solutions without signs of stress. This can be supported by systematic instruction aimed at applying checklists or heuristic schemata for error diagnosis and problem solving or error management. The trainer is instructed not to help the learner by giving direct information on the solution of problems but to encourage the subjects to use these schemata autonomously. Following stress inoculation training (Meichenbaum, 1974) we prefer a gradual psychological immunization strategy. Learning to manage errors successfully reduces emotional strain (anxiety or anger reactions) and feelings of helplessness in unavoidable error situations. Instead of relying solely on online help systems in the program or on hotline telephone help, we try to establish mutual personal social support in the training courses and encourage the people to develop personal help networks at the workplace.
For practical use, the initial design of exploratory learning environments that are optimal for different learners is a rather difficult task. Our solution is to combine the design of minimal guidelines for self-instruction and exploratory learning tasks. We allow for individual differences. The individuals can choose between learning resources and can determine the level of system and task complexity and the speed of learning for themselves. According to theory (Greif & Keller, 1990), they have the opportunity to control the level of novelty and complexity in the exploration, facilitating the development of skills, and self-efficacy. This might encourage future exploratory learning, creativity and role innovation (Farr & Ford, 1990).
Exploratory learning by errors and self-organized learning approaches have been evaluated by several experimental studies and training courses for novices (different word processor software systems and multifunctional office packages; see Greif, 1994). The results show clearly that most novices, after exploratory learning by errors, are able to perform complex tasks successfully (see Irmer et al., 1991, for similar results relating to error management training). A clear advantage of self-organized learning is that it initiates personal help networks and social support between colleagues and autonomous exploratory learning on the job. Evidence from a follow-up study demonstrates that after the training most subjects were able to learn new complex software systems quickly on their own (Greif, 1994). The approach has been integrated into a broad self-organizing and organizational learning concept (Greif&Kurtz, 1998). It has been successfully applied to diverse application fields, including leadership and team learning, technological and communication skills. For example, in team learning of call centre agents (Peukmann & Peukmann, 2001) we applied “minimal information” (short written information on special subjects, like fast internet connections; for a description of standards on how to write and design them, see Greif & Kurtz, 1998) instead of standard classroom instruction techniques. In order to stimulate active acquisition of technological knowledge the participants were asked to read the information and actively explore the technical system and to present it to the other team members in an entertaining way. Communication skills are trained by role playing through “minimal guidelines” (very short self-instructions or descriptions of heuristic procedures; see Greif & Kurtz, 1998) and video self-confrontation techniques. From the beginning of the seminar we stimulate the development of mutual help networks. The participants are encouraged to design minimal information and minimal guidelines for important and difficult tasks. They are accessible for everyone in the knowledge management system. The impressive results of the study show that there is a substantial increase of knowledge and communication skills assessed by calls of trained test customers, and also self-efficacy, team climate and mutual helping (Peukmann&Peukmann, 2001). In three teams apparently the situation changed from a general climate of stress and isolated helplessness to one of mutual support in the team. The test customers observed much more friendly, skilled and self-confident communication behaviour. The example shows that radical changes of helplessness are possible by adequate learning and supporting environments. It is not far from the ideal vision of a “salutogenic” (or healthiness supporting; see above) learning organization whose members are able to actively design and manage relevant current and future technological and job changes participatively, successfully and self-confidently.
In summary, the results of both experimental and field research show that new technology is not a source of stress per se. There is no study that would prove such a simple assumption. On the contrary, in many studies on different factors and on the overall impact of new technologies, we find groups of employees where stress remains constant or even declines following the implementation of new computer systems at work. However, stress may result from many concrete problems like malfunction and lack of usability of systems that have not been tested sufficiently, excessive complexity, poor ergonomic design of hardware and software equipment and furnishings, insufficient training or psychologically unsatisfying design of task demands and job roles.These problems in most cases can be reduced to a tolerable level by active participation in the (re)design of technological and organizational systems, and active self-organizing learning.
Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies on the overall impact of technological changes on mental health show that the basic problem is an inadequate implementation of the technological changes. It is essential to provide credible and concrete information in advance and to promote active employee participation. Participation should embrace the analysis and design of the job, the technology and the resulting changes. If the risk of negative consequences is high, small pilot tests should be carried out together with the promotion of active self-organizing learning processes, knowledge management and mutual help networks. Last but not least, enough time to adapt psychologically to the changes should be set aside. We propose a holistic and participative implementation strategy to master all kinds of changes:
1. detailed information in advance; 2. active partcipation in the selection and (re)design of hardware and software; 3. active participation in task and job redesign; 4. design of active self-organizing learning environments and help systems.
The goal is to provide the employees with the necessary information, technology, task and organizational structures, knowledge and competences to manage the planned innovation. This prevents long-term stress reactions resulting from malfunctions, uncertainty, complexity and newness of the changes.
Learning how to manage technological or other changes in the organization by actively participating in the design of hardware and software, tasks and jobs, and learning environments is a very important investment of innovative organizations. It should be planned very carefully. The vision is a learning organization which is able to adapt to all relevant change demands, and which in the long run supports the development of human resources and health.
Today, computer systems are standard technologies in modern industries and administration, but technological innovation does not stop. The innovation tempo of computer hardware and software has accelerated. Therefore, “stress by permanent changes” is an emerging problem that should be observed carefully. From the results of the field studies cited above, we may infer that stress will be lower for those organizations that are able to manage quick adaptation processes with the active participation of their employees. The best practical recommendation to cope with the complexity and novelty of technological and organizational changes is to invest in the participation, competence and networks of the employees. Also exploratory and self-organized learning on the job appears to be a psychologically adequate solution. Still in the future new technologies and stress will remain a complex problem.
Tags: Implementation Strategies, Planned technological changes