studies

Question 1

open plan office

Answer 1

office where all employees work on same floor within same open space

Question 2

open plan designed to:

Answer 2

get rid of individual rooms or areas to
- increase collaboration, creativity, productivity
- network with colleagues+improve friendships
- fit more ppl in space, reduce running costs+building costs

Question 3

negatives of open plan

Answer 3

high noise level, loss of concentration, privacy issues, health issues(increased stress, more likely flu)

Question 4

Oldham and Brass(1979) aim

Answer 4

examine change in employees’ reactions to work after moving from conventional office to open plane office design

Question 5

oldham+brass method(sample)

Answer 5

76 employees at American newspaper
- no filing cabinets more than 3 feet high, no private offices
- workers complete questionnaire 8weeks before move, at 9 weeks, at 18 weeks.
results compared to 2 control groups(5 pressroom staff, quasi control randomly selected at beginning)

Question 6

how was data collected in Oldham

Answer 6

• 7 point rating scales measuring characteristics of work environment including
• work satisfaction(degree satisfied+happy with jobs),
• interpersonal satisfaction(degree to which employees were satisfied with co-workers, supervisors)
• internal work motivation(degree to which individual experiences +ve internal feelings when performing effectively on job
• management+employees informally questioned to gather extra qual data on reactions to open plan office, interviews used to see whether changes to work environment may have occurred simultaneously.
• researchers were asked abt concentration levels

Question 7

quant findings oldham

Answer 7

employee int. mot+satisfaction with work+colleagues DECLINED SHARPLY after moving from trad office to open plan. largely no diff between scores of exp group tested 3 times+quasi-control group->decreased motivation+satisfaction wasn’t a result of order effects from completing questionnaire before/after move
- pressroom controls showed no diff, meaning changes were due to office structure, not the move itself

Question 8

qual findings oldham

Answer 8

• many interviewees described office as ‘fishbowl/cage/warehouse’
  discussed feelings abt lack of privacy, inability to concentrate due to noise(described it as Grand Central)

Question 9

-: generalisability of Oldham

Answer 9

used data from one company in Midwest USA
- cultural diffs may have contributed to results-not apply to other countries that are more collectivist
may well be that the company had particular characteristics that meant that open plan offices did not suit the workers, or it may be that there were other issues within that caused the results collected

Question 10

-: temporal validity of Oldham

Answer 10

1979 open plan offices weren’t common
now they are so people are used to working in them

Question 11

Gold et al aim

Answer 11

examine impact of work schedule on sleep schedule, sleepiness and accident rates of female nurses in Massachusetts hospital

Question 12

Gold methodology

Answer 12

questionnaires given to 878 nurses(mean age 33.9) an other auxiliary(support) hospital staff
- nurses recorded for current week, following week, previous two weeks their work shift category at hospital+any other job

1. rotator (4 days/evening, 4 days night)
2. day/evening but NO night
3. nights- 8 shifts in a month, no day/evening
4. day/evening occasional night shifts
5. nights with occasional day/evening

nurses asked whether job involved variable work shift(sometimes day/night)
- sleep wake times recorded throughout.
info collected abt sleep quality, alcohol consumption, meds taken, falling asleep at work, falling asleep driving to/from work, errors/near miss accidents in PAST YEAR
- sleep+wake times used to see whether nurse obtained ‘anchor sleep’ at least 4 hours sleep during work days+days off

Question 13

Gold results

Answer 13

rotators: fewer hours of sleep, more accidents, more near misses than day/evening, as well as night
- falling asleep at work occurred at least once a week in 35% rotators
- 32.4% night nurses, 20.7% day/evening nurses worked occasional nights
- rotators had 3.9x odds falling asleep whilst driving, night nurses had 3.6 times odds compared to day/evening
- adjusting for effects of alcohol/meds, odds reporting any accident/errors x2 more likely for rotators than day/evening, there were 2.5times odds of near-miss accidents

Question 14

-:ve Gold

Answer 14

nurses may change answers in questionnaire due to social desirability
- don’t want to get fired/look back due to making mistakes at work

Question 15

how to reduce system errors

Answer 15

• ensure correct display used for information needed (digital display instead of dial)
• group displays logically- if more than one display for single system
• use colour to enhance display+warn danger but dont cause eye strain
• label controls

Question 16

Fox et al (1970-83)

Answer 16

token economy in 2 open-pit mines USA to reduce injuries from accidents

Question 17

method

Answer 17

workers in each mine divided into hazard groups based on lost time injuries during baseline period.
Group 1 jobs least hazardous(75% time in office), Group 4 most hazardous(electricians, scrapers, operators)

ind employees given trading stamps at end of monty with wages if no time lost due to injury/compensation requiring doctor
- num stamps increased depending on level of job hazard

Question 18

what led to more stamps

Answer 18

• safety groups awarded extra stamps for employees who created safety prevention suggestions preventing serious injury

Question 19

what led to decreased stamps

Answer 19

• employees with accident received no stamps for monty if off1-2days/2months if off2-3 days
• loss of tokens if failed to report accident

Question 20

results

Answer 20

both mines time lost significantly decreased, not in 1st year but in 2nd
cost of injury+accidents fell significantly, cost-benefit ratio showed money saved from decline in accidents more than compensated for cost of trading stamps

1st mine: 197->606->214
2nd: 450 -> 501 -> 501

Question 21

Swat (1994-1997) case study w/ longitudinal

Answer 21

AIM: develop organisationally useful method of recording risk events in orgs which could help find causes of accidents+prevent them

Question 22

Swat data collection

Answer 22

utilised available secondary data on accidents+minor injuries in 4 diff industrial plants in Poland
- Interviews with line managers, safety supervisors, employees

Question 23

sample Swat

Answer 23

2964 employees 1993
Sample: 4 industrial plants Lodz, Poland.
all plants chosen were rather OLD and had old equipment
Diff branches: foundry, machinery, meat processing, furniture

Question 24

accident

Answer 24

case formally reported as accident by safety supervisor
sudden undesired event connected with workplace resulting in impairment of worker, resulting in sick leave/death

Question 25

accident frequency

Answer 25

number of injury accidents resulting in sick leave per 100 employees within a year

Question 26

accident severity rate

Answer 26

number of sick leave days per accident

Question 27

3 types of info used about accidents in Swat

Answer 27

- collective accident reports from safety supervisors researchers own investigations of accident protocols interviews with safety supervisors and line managers

Question 28

2nd info source in Swat about risk at work

Answer 28

from minor accidents not resulting in death, serious injury/damage only meat processing analysed, with incident defined as any sudden event resulting in personal injury data on first aid cases reported to meat plants analysed as well as interviews with 96 employees, told to report even small injuries

Question 29

results Swat accident frequency(per 100 employees), severity rate(number sick days per accident)

Answer 29

F: foundry(5.9), meat(2.8), machinery(2.1), furniture(2.3) AVG=2.8 S: machine(61.2), meat(41.4), furniture(41.2), foundry(38.8)

Question 30

5 diff accident types in Swat

Answer 30

- falls and slips - accidents connected to manual work - " working parts of machinery - " sources of energy - others manual(meat)->working parts(foundry)->falls->sources of energy(foundry)->other

Question 31

4 essential causes of accidents

Answer 31

- insufficient supervision (89%) - poor workplace organisation - technical factors - individual error of worker ->poor housekeeping (falls, faulty staircases, use of improper tools, unsuitable clothes)