|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
A Reexamination of Autonomy in Light of New Manufacturing Practices
Janice A. Klein
Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Soldiers Field, Boston, Massachusetts 02163.
Individual and/or group autonomy have long been considered critical dimensions of job design in participative work settings. Autonomy has typically been defined as discretion over pace of work and work methods (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), and in an effort to provide autonomy, buffers have traditionally been inserted into the work flow to break task interdependencies. The use of such buffers, however, runs counter to today's new manufacturing practices of just-in-time (JIT) inventory and standardized work. This paper, therefore, examines the effects of introducing such practices on levels of autonomy in different operations. In mature sociotechnical plants where employees have become accustomed to independent decision making, the introduction of process controls can diminish individual autonomy. But, there is an opportunity to exchange individual decision making with a form of collective autonomy which is limited to task design as opposed to task execution. Furthermore, individuals can still retain autonomy in cases where it does not affect the overall coordination of production activity. Last, the introduction of new process controls offers the opportunity for participative decision making in situations where hierarchical centralized decision making was once the norm.
Key Words: autonomy • job design • just-in-time manufacturing • standardization • teamwork
Human Relations, Vol. 44, No. 1,
21-38 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/001872679104400102
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
J. Niemela and S. Kalliola
Team Membership and Experiences of Work in the Finnish Context
Economic and Industrial Democracy,
November 1, 2007;
28(4):
552 - 588.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Vidal
Manufacturing empowerment? 'Employee involvement' in the labour process after Fordism
Socioecon. Rev.,
April 1, 2007;
5(2):
197 - 232.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Briscoe
From Iron Cage to Iron Shield? How Bureaucracy Enables Temporal Flexibility for Professional Service Workers
Organization Science,
March 1, 2007;
18(2):
297 - 314.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Schouteten and J. Benders
Lean Production Assessed by Karasek's Job Demand-Job Control Model
Economic and Industrial Democracy,
August 1, 2004;
25(3):
347 - 373.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hodson
Worker Participation and Teams: New Evidence from Analyzing Organizational Ethnographies
Economic and Industrial Democracy,
November 1, 2002;
23(4):
491 - 528.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. W. Langfred
Work-Group Design and Autonomy: A Field Study of the Interaction Between Task Interdependence and Group Autonomy
Small Group Research,
February 1, 2000;
31(1):
54 - 70.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Victor, A. Boynton, and T. Stephens-Jahng
The Effective Design of Work Under Total Quality Management
Organization Science,
January 1, 2000;
11(1):
102 - 117.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. G. Cohen and D. E. Bailey
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Journal of Management,
June 1, 1997;
23(3):
239 - 290.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. C. Liden, S. J. Wayne, and L. K. Bradway
Task Interdependence as a Moderator of the Relation Between Group Control and Performance
Human Relations,
February 1, 1997;
50(2):
169 - 181.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hodson, S. Creighton, C. S. Jamison, S. Rieble, and S. Welsh
Loyalty to Whom? Workplace Participation and the Development of Consent
Human Relations,
August 1, 1994;
47(8):
895 - 909.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Jenkins
Teams : From 'Ideology' to Analysis
Organization Studies,
January 1, 1994;
15(6):
849 - 860.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
