An action research approach was used to plan for organization development (OD) in centers within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) responsible for remote monitoring and coordination of maintenance. Research participants worked in one of three centers. The participants were asked questions about their technical background; interdependencies, structure, complexity, and workload inherent in the job; cohesion and trust among co-workers; and perceived operational effectiveness and job satisfaction. Results were summarized and categorized as related to workload, resources, and knowledge of results. Strategies to address one or more of the factors identified were proposed. Strategies included the use of small teams to organize work, a revised training approach for new employees and leaders, internal and external mechanisms for performance feedback, and a fatigue risk management approach to improve shift work practices. The next step will be to work with managers to tailor and implement selected strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsB. D.SatoriJ. A. (2006). Validating the trust in teams and trust in leaders scales. Contract report for the Department of National Defence; Toronto, Canada.
2.
AJS – Technical Operations Fatigue Risk Management Work Group. (2011). Findings of the technical operations fatigue risk management (TOFRM) work group. FAA Air Traffic Organization AJS.
3.
ATO – Technical Operations Services (2004, November). Draft briefing on the operations control centers (OCCs) assessment. FAA Air Traffic Organization.
4.
AversK.KingS.NesthusT.ThomasS.BanksJ. (2009b). Flight attendant fatigue, part I: National duty, rest, and fatigue survey. (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-09/24). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine.
5.
BeckhardR. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6.
CampionM. A.MedskerG. J.HiggsA. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
7.
CraigT. Y.KellyJ. R. (1999). Group cohesiveness and creative performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 2, 243-256.
8.
CruzC.Della RoccoP.HackworthC. (2000). Effects of quick rotating shift schedules on the health and adjustments of air traffic controllers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71, 400-407.
9.
Della RoccoP.NesthusT. E. (2005). Shiftwork and air traffic control: Transitioning results to the workforce. In KirwanB.RodgersM. D.SchaeferD. (Eds.), Human factors impacts in air traffic management (pp. 243–278). Aldershot etc.: Ashgate.
10.
FrenchW.BellC. (1999). Organization development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
HackmanR. J.OldhamG. R. (1976), Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 16, pp. 250-279.
13.
HunterA.PierceL., (September2010). Information Sharing in Distributed Teams. Proceedings of the 54th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
KatesA.GalbraithJ. (2007). Designing your organization. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
15.
KingR. E. (2009). Current condition of the OCC road to 2014. Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute Unpublished Manuscript.
16.
LiuS.BattR. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multilevel study of coaching and group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychology, 63, 265-298.
17.
PearceJ. L.GregersonH. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838-844.
18.
PearsallM. J.ChristianM. S.AleksanderP. J. E. (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between?Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 183-191.
19.
PierceL.KingR.DzindoletM., (May2010). Multi-team systems in federal aviation administration technical operations. Poster presented at the Oklahoma Kansas Judgment Decision Making Conference (OKJDM). Oklahoma City, OK: University of Oklahoma Health Science Center.
20.
RomaP. G.MallisM. M.HurshS. R.MeadA. M.NesthusT. E. (2010) Flight Attendant Fatigue Recommendation II: Flight Attendant Work/Rest Patterns, Alertness, and Performance Assessment. (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-10/22) Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration.
21.
RossiM. E. (2008). The development and validation of the comprehensive team interdependence scale. Theses and Dissertations. Paper 481. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/481 (retrieved October 18, 2011).
22.
RothwellW. J.SullivanR. L. (2010). Change process and models. In RothwellW. J.StavrosJ. MSulllivanR. L.SullivanA. (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change, (3rd Ed.) (43-72). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
23.
StaplesD. S.WebsterJ. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on information sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18, 617-640.
24.
WorkmanM.BommerW. (2004). Redesigning computer call center work: a longitudinal field experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 317-337.
