Designing work for diversity

An important principle of well-designed work (see Safe Work Australia's principles of good work design) is that the work should "fit" the worker or workers. This means that, contrary to the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach to work design, roles and responsibilities should be adapted to meet the needs of a diverse workforce. Accommodating the diverse needs of people is not only a legal expectation, but is important for attracting and retaining talent, and hence makes good business sense.

I presented on this topic, focusing especially on how work might be redesigned to attract and retain mature workers, to an international audience at the XX1 World Congress on Safety & Health at Work in Singapore this weekend.

The symposium was organised by Michelle Baxter, CEO of Safe Work Australia. Michelle moderated the session, along side Kala Anandarajah from the Workplace Safety and Health Council in Singapore. Speakers included researchers from Italy, Malaysia, Bulgaria, and Perth, and the topics included the health and safety implications of women in the workplace, migrants, and international students.

In my presentation, I outlined the way that ageing can affect people physically, biomechanically, cognitively, and in terms of attitudes and personality. Given the challenges ahead of population ageing, we need to start adjusting work to better cater for the needs of mature workers if we want to maximise their likelihood of them staying in work, and being safe, healthy & productive at the same time.

This topic will be the focus of a new program of research, Mature Workers in Organisations, that I will soon be leading as part of the Centre for Population Ageing Research (CEPAR, cepar.edu.au). Please contact me if your organisation has any interest in participating in this research.

Click here for the slides

#Matureworkers #Ageing #JobDesign

Telecommuting can improve productivity and engagement... If it's done right.

From Forbes, 31 Aug 2017

Out of the 11.6 million employed people in Australia, 3.5 million are telecommuters. In other words, about three in ten people work outside of a traditional work structure. This could include working from home - or anywhere in the world - making use of the internet, email or telephone to stay connected. While some jobs allow employees to telecommute some of their work days, other employees are fully telecommuters, which means that they do not have a workspace in a traditional office.

According a survey conducted by Flexjobs, a job search site specialising in telecommuting, part-time, freelance, and flexible jobs, almost seven in ten professionals believed that their productivity would increase if they worked remotely. A separate survey conducted by Gallup found that while employees who telecommute do appear to be more productive and engaged, this incremental effect nullifies when the job becomes fully remote. It seems that telecommuting can help in improving productivity and employee engagement, but this benefit increases when employees are able to spend some time telecommuting and some time working in a location with their coworkers.

This suggests that the social aspect of work, for example providing developmental feedback, is still essential in good work design. Implications for the design of fully remote work include ensuring that fully telecommuting employees continue to be supported by their managers, for example through clear communication channels.

Click here for the full report.

En(light)en me about good and bad work design: The lantern production simulation

On Monday the 21st of August, the PSYC 5515 class was turned into a paper lantern factory (for educational purposes of course!). The lantern simulation game was a perfect way for students to experience what it is like to work in organisations with good and bad work design. The class was split into two completing organisations: product focused versus process focused. Each student had a specific job role that contributed to the overarching purpose of their organisation, to produce lantern orders for clients (these were “played” by one of the CTWD post-docs, Florian Klonek, and the class unit instructor, Lisette Kanse).

The process focused organisation was designed to reflect a bureaucracy with simplified jobs (low autonomy, low task identity, low use of skills)- much like a production-line. The product focused organisation, on the other hand, had much more enriched jobs and the opportunity to regulate tasks within teams.

The orders came in via the CEO and trickled through each organisation to be eventually delivered to the client. As expected, the product focused organisation was more productive, delivering 3 out of 6 orders within the designated time frame.

At the end of the simulation, “employees” from both organisations met for a debriefing and to share their personal experiences within their respective organisation.

A short “employee perception survey” showed that the job characteristics between the two organisations differed widely.

Florian and Lisette used the results of the survey to discuss with the class how the systematic differences in job characteristics relate to the outcomes in job satisfaction and productivity.

Note: 1 = participants rated the particular job characteristic as very low in the “employee survey”; 5 = participants rated the particular job characteristic as very high in the “employee survey”

The small simulation helped to convey to participants the importance of good work design.

#OrganisationalPsychology #JobDesign