An empirical study was conducted among eight similarly organized work groups numbering between 17 and 23 mechanics, operators, and supervisors each and employing similar and very sophisticated mechanical-harvesting equipment. Productivity of the higher-performing groups was double that of the lower performers. This article identifies key variables and their interactions in a model designed to explain the productivity variance. The model is developed from a sociotechnical systems perspective.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ANDERSSON, S.Operational efficiency in Swedish forestry. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Woodland Section of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Montreal, Canada, March 1979.
2.
BOYD, J. H.Strategy to reduce repair downtime in logging machines. Montreal: Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. (Technical Report No. 10, December 1976).
3.
CHERNS, A. B.The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 1976, 29(8), 783-792.
4.
DAVIS, L. E.Towards a theory of job design. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1957, 8(5), 19-23.
5.
DAVIS, L. E.Evolving alternative organization designs: Their sociotechnical bases. Human Relations, 1977, 30(3), 261-273.
6.
EMERY, F. E., & TRIST, E. L.Sociotechnical systems. In C. W. Churchman & M. Verhurst (EDs.), Management science, models and techniques. London: Pergamon, 1960.
7.
EMERY, F. E., & THORSRUD, E.Form and content in industrial democracy. London: Tavistock, 1964.
8.
EMERY, F. E., & THORSRUD, E.Democracy at work. Leiden: Martinus Nihoff, 1976.
9.
EMERY, F.The emergence of a new paradigm of work. Canberra, Australia: Centre for Continuing Education, the Australian National University, 1978.
10.
FOSTER, M.The Theory and Practice of Action Research in Work Organizations. Human Relations, 1972, 25, 529-556.
11.
HERBST, P. G.Sociotechnical design. London: Tavistock, 1974.
12.
KOLODNY, H. F.A sociotechnical study of productivity and social organization in mechanical harvesting operation in the Canadian woodlands, Technological Innovation Studies Program, Technology Branch, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada, May 1979.
13.
MIKALACHKI, A.Group cohesion reconsidered. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, 1969.
14.
RICE, A. K.Productivity and social organization: The Ahmedabad experiment. London: Tavistock, 1958.
15.
SUSMAN, G. I.Autonomy at work: A sociotechnical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger, 1976.
16.
SUSMAN, G. I., & EVERED, D.An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1978,23, December, 582-603.
17.
TRIST, E. L., & BAMFORTH, K. W., Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 1951, 4, 3-38.
18.
TRIST, E. L., HIGGIN, G. W., MURRAY, H., & POLLOCK, A. B.Organizational choice. London: Tavistock, 1963.
19.
WALTON, R. E.Work Innovations in the United States. Harvard Busines Review, 1979, July-August, 88-98.
