Towards the Development of a Sociotechnical Systems Model in Woodlands Mechanical Harvesting

Abstract

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.

Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis

“…Cognitions (or knowledge) include cue strategy associations, task speci® c team-mate characteristics, shared task models, team mission, objectives, norms, and resources, task sequencing, accurate task models and problem models, team role interaction patterns, teamwork skills, boundary spanning roles, and team orientation. Behaviours (or skills) consist of adaptability, shared situational awareness, mutual (Hackman 1983(Hackman , 1987 Sociotechnical approach: concerning the technical and work-related implications of team members' relationships and interactions with one another Dynamic Interactions (Kolodny and Kiggundu 1980) Self-Regulating Work Groups (Pearce and Ravlin 1987) Ecological approach: relating to the spacing and interdependence of team members and institutions, or the relationships of team members with their organizational or working environment Group and Organizational Boundaries Altman 1989, Sundstrom et al 1990) Human resource approach: focusing on the utilization of human capabilities and talents Human Resource Management (Shea and Guzzo 1987) Technological approach: relating to industry or applied science, or to technological progress Technological and Organizational Variables (Goodman et al 1987) Lifecycle approach: pertaining to changes within a team that result from its maturation or evolution over a lifecycle Time and Transition Model (Gersick 1985(Gersick , 1988 Team Evolution and Maturation Model (TEAM) (Morgan et al 1986, Morgan et al 1994 Functional (taxonomic) or task-oriented approach: concerning team roles, functions, or tasking Team Performance Model (Nieva et al 1978;others = Dickinson 1969, Dieterly 1988, Fleishman and Zaccaro 1992, Naylor and Dickinson 1969, Shi¯ett et al 1982 Integrative approach: inclusive of multiple approaches or models Composition, Structure, Resources and Process, or Task Group EVectiveness Model (Gladstein 1984) Input, Throughput, Output or Team EVectiveness Model (TEM) Work Team Design (Campion et al 1993, Campion et al 1996 performance monitoring, motivating team members/team leadership, mission analysis, communication, decision-making, assertiveness, interpersonal coordination, and con¯ict resolution. Last, attitudes embody motivation, collective eYcacy/ potency, shared vision, team cohesion, mutual trust, collective orientation and importance of teamwork.…”

Groups, Teams, and the Division of Labor: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Organization of Work

“…Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer 1996;Kolodny and Kiggundu 1980). Most of the US literature on group effectiveness, however, drew primary inspiration from input-process-output models (e.g.…”

Problem‐solving Teams and the Improvement of Organizational Performance in Schools

“…Indeed, schools utilizing the expertise and problem-solving skills of teachers experience better decisions and increased efficiency . Technology affects task designs as well (Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980), and the administration of PSTs is significantly related to their effectiveness (Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991).…”

“…Practitioners argue that timely and accurate feedback are essential, if PSTs are to function effectively (Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980;Garvin, 1988). There is evidence in our case example and others, that feedback contributed to improved performance (Wood & Locke, 1990).…”