What is required of job design and production planning, if they are to result in a work group taking a self‐starting approach and going beyond what is formally required of it? This paper aims to contribute to group research by testing a theoretical model of relations between job design on the one hand (captured as completeness, demand on responsibility, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand, and learning opportunities), and reflexivity and learning processes within natural work groups in industry on the other hand.
The results are based on detailed task analyses and questionnaires from 40 work groups at the shop‐floor level in manufacturing industry in Sweden.
Job design and work routines show strong effects on reflexivity and learning processes. Four dimensions of job design – completeness, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand and learning opportunities – impact on reflexivity and learning processes. Job design correlates with social routines, and social routines with work routines.
It is crucial to create a job design that puts challenging demands on the group if group processes are to be characterized by reflexivity and learning. Managers have a challenging task to provide both a space and a climate that supports reflexivity and learning. All functions affected by production planning need to be involved in job design to balance conflicts between productivity and innovation.
Detailed task analysis is worthwhile as it captures aspects that are prerequisites for innovative groups not previously accounted for.
