Change search
Refine search result
1 - 12 of 12
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Lantz, Annika
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Intervjumetodik2013 (ed. 3)Book (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Hur genomförs en intervju på ett professionellt sätt? Författaren beskriver vad som kännetecknar en väl genomförd intervju och vad som kännetecknar ett professionellt förhållningssätt, oberoende av intervjuns ämne, innehåll och form. I denna tredje, omarbetade upplaga, fokuseras framför allt på vilka kompetenser som krävs för att intervjun ska fylla sin funktion som datainsamlingsmetod. Boken följer den kronologiska ordningen i ett intervjuarbete, vilket gör den lättläst och praktiskt användbar.

  • 2.
    Lantz, Annika
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    NPM och tillit – om handlingsutrymmets psykologiska innebörd och betydelse2017Report (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 3.
    Lantz, Annika
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    The Role of Supportive Leadership and Job Design for Proactive Behavior and Self-Organization in Work Groups2013In: International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations, ISSN 2155-6393, Vol. 3, no 2, p. 19-35Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Research on group work has shown that supportive leadership helps improve the group’s cooperation and social exchange in groups, which in turn influences the effects of the group work. This study develops a previous model on the relationship between job design, group processes, group initiative and self-organizational activities by including supportive leadership. The hypothesized model was tested using LISREL 8.30 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993) in five different organizational contexts (two types of industry, elderly care, school and nuclear power plant) and in 104 work groups. The results are based on work task analysis (two studies) and questionnaires. The meaningfulness of the model was tested both in contexts where proactive behavior and self-organizational activities are desirable and in a context where proactive behavior can be damaging. Dimensions of job design, supportive leadership, group processes are interrelated and connected to self-organizational activities. Reflectivity and group initiative show the largest effects on self-organizational activities. Job design captured by work task analysis gives a better model fit and has a larger impact on self-organizational activities than self-assessed autonomy. Supportive leadership has an effect on group processes that in turn impact group initiative and self-organizational activities and a direct effect on group initiative as well.

  • 4.
    Lantz, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Andersson, Kin
    The design of previous job and vocational behaviour during unemployment2012In: Unemployment, precarious work and health: Research and policy issues / [ed] Thomas Kieselbach, Simo Mannila, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2012, p. 205-217Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    This book addresses the links between unemployment, precariousness work and health risks from various scientific frames of reference as well as those of policy-makers. The authors range from major classics in the field to newcomers from several countries presenting their research results. The authors include also representatives of several international organizations. The anthology is of a multidisciplinary character and its articles evaluate the contributions of various projects, programmes and standard public services for persons at risk of labour market exclusion. It updates the research agenda, which is most topical during the financial crisis and economic restructuring of today.

  • 5.
    Lantz, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Friedrich, Peter
    Creating Team-Learning and Proactivity by Expanding Job Design Practises within Lean Production2015In: International annual edition of applied psychology: theory, research and practice, ISSN 2313-4097, Vol. 1, no 1, p. 44-62Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Lean production and team-work are based on seemingly opposing principles of job design, and yet often combined in production systems within industry. In this study we explored conditions for team learning and proactive behaviour within one specific context and version of the lean concept; the Volvo Production System (VPS). The aim of the study was to identify job design practises that promote learning in teams in a leaned production system, and identify organizational barriers for team learning in order to promote teams’ proactive behaviour. The results are based on quantitative analysis of a) work task analysis of cognitive demand in standardized and non-standardized tasks, a questionnaire to all employees on the shop-floor, production-leaders’ ratings of team proactivity, and b)  qualitative analysis of interviews with specialists from support functions and production leaders. Standardized tasks, regardless of cognitive demand, do not impact team learning processes or proactivity. Mediation analysis on aggregated data (a) consisting of 41 teams showed that cognitive demand in the most demanding task in the non-standardized work was fully mediated by team learning processes on proactivity and that inter-team collaboration was mediated by team-learning processes on proactivity. A conclusion is that the potential for team-learning processes and proactivity lies in those work activities that are not standardized, and good inter-team collaboration in the work-flow. The non-standardized tasks take very little time, and are not more cognitively demanding than the main tasks, and yet impact team proactivity to a considerable extent as they give input to building a shared meaning of work. The tentative qualitative results (b) show differences between stake-holders input to stagnant and vibrant teams. The main difference is between thinking teamwork or individual work, expanding work into joint problem-solving or defining divided and clear-cut work roles, in the coordination of different support functions activities, and if teams are involved in prioritizing what should be done.

  • 6.
    Lantz, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Hansen, Niklas
    Antoni, Conny
    Participative work design in lean production: a strategy for dissolving the paradox between standardized work and team proactivity by stimulating team learning?2015In: Journal of Workplace Learning, ISSN 1366-5626, E-ISSN 1758-7859, Vol. 27, no 1, p. 19-33Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore job design mechanisms that enhance team proactivity within a lean production system where autonomy is uttermost restricted. We propose and test a model where the team learning process of building shared meaning of work mediates the relationship between team participative decision-making, inter team relations and team proactive behaviour. Design/methodology/approach: The results are based on questionnaires to 417 employees within manufacturing industry (response rate 86 per cent) and managers’ ratings of team proactivity. The research model was tested by mediation analysis on aggregated data (56 teams). Findings: Team learning mediates the relationship between participative decision-making and inter team collaboration on team proactive behaviour. Input from stakeholders in the work flow and partaking in decisions about work, rather than autonomy in carrying out the work, enhance the teams’ proactivity through learning processes. Research limitations/implications: An investigation of the effects of different leadership styles and management policy on proactivity through team-learning processes might shed light on how leadership promotes proactivity, as results support the effects of team participative decision-making – reflecting management policy – on proactivity. Practical implications: Lean production stresses continuous improvements for enhancing efficiency, and such processes rely on individuals and teams that are proactive. Participation in forming the standardization of work is linked to managerial style, which can be changed and developed also within a lean concept. Based on our experiences of implementing the results in the production plant, we discuss what it takes to create and manage participative processes and close collaboration between teams on the shop floor, and other stakeholders such as production support, based on a shared understanding of the work and work processes. Social implications: Learning at the workplace is essential for long-term employability, and for job satisfaction and health. The lean concept is widely spread to both public bodies and enterprises, and it has been shown that it can be linked to increased stress and an increase in workload. Finding the potential for learning within lean production is essential for balancing the need of efficient production and employees’ health and well-being at work. Originality/value: Very few studies have investigated the paradox between lean and teamwork, yet many lean-inspired productions systems have teamwork as a pillar for enhancing effectiveness. A clear distinction between autonomy and participation contributes to the understanding of the links between job design, learning processes and team proactivity.

  • 7.
    Lantz, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Hansen, Niklas
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
    Antoni, Conny H.
    University of Trier.
    Teamwork within lean production or the paradox between standardization of work and innovation2013In: Imagine the future world: How do we want to work tomorrow?: Abstract proceedings of the 16th EAWOP Congress 2013 / [ed] Guido Hertel, Carmen Binnewies, Stefan Krumm, Heinz Holling, Martin Kleinmann, 2013, p. 777-777Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Purpose: The core of lean production is founded on the concept of continuous product and process improvement and the elimination of nonvalue-adding activities and teamwork as a pillar to becoming lean. Autonomy has shown to be crucial for motivation, job satisfaction, performance and innovative teamwork. To reduce nonvalue-adding activities means to standardize work procedures and hence to reduce autonomy. Continuous improvement, on the other hand, relies on teams that are proactive. How can the paradox between the standardization of work and innovative teamwork be understood? The aim of the study is to explore job design practices that enhance team proactivity within a lean production system where autonomy is uttermost restricted. We hypothesize that job design parameters (team participation in decision making regarding job routines, participative leadership style, cross-functional cooperation) enhance team proactivity via team learning (building shared meaning) as a mediator. Design/Methodology: The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression and mediation analysis with aggregated data consisting of 57 teams (N = 417 individuals) on shop-floor level within one production plant. Results: Results showed that the model explained 49% of team proactivity, of which building shared meaning was the major contributor and mediator between team participation, crossfunctional cooperation and proactivity. Limitations: Results are based on a cross-sectional study and cannot be interpreted causally yet. Research/Practical Implications: This study contributes to the research on team learning and transactive memory as it underline the importance of shared perceptions on team level for proactivity to emerge.

  • 8.
    Lantz, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Sjöberg, Anders
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Friedrich, Peter
    Cross-boundary collaboration and team innovation2017Conference paper (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The individual employees’ possibility to learn at the workplace is an important aspect of a humane work situation (Kohn & Schooler, 1982), and individual learning is a prerequisite for collective learning that result in meaningful change and development within organizations. Lean production System (LPS) has been widely implemented in organizations in different sectors all over the world (Wittrock, 2015). A review of how LPS affect employees shows mainly negative impact of LPS on health, well-being, work-related attitudes, as well as learning, creativity and proactivity (Hasle, Bojesen, Langaa Jensen, & Bramming, 2012). Some studies show also positive outcomes, but little is known about how LPS is implemented when it results in efficiency, learning and positive work conditions (Cullinane, Bosak, Flood, & Demerouti, 2012). LPS principles (short work flows, focus on value-stream, standardization, and routinization) limit autonomy and complexity, and are opposed to a job design that supports individual-, and team learning (see e.g. Lantz, Sjöberg & Friedrich, 2016). Yet LPS should be an effective means for innovation processes through teamwork, and cooperation across functions and teams (Netland,2013).

    The results presented in this paper are based on two studies, part of a larger longitudinal project on teamwork on the shop-floor within LPS in manufacturing industry. Lantz, Sjöberg, and Friedrich (2016) showed in a previous study that additional work tasks carried out on spare time, such as maintenance work, handling deviations, and eliminating non-value-added activities, impact team proactivity through team learning, Main tasks (90% of the work-time) do not. A conclusion was that teamwork within LPS can be a pillar for innovation, and enhance learning, if additional tasks are identified and carried out. How can such proactive behavior be supported? Within the production all tasks that go beyond the production when it runs well, involve other functions. We regard cooperation across borders with other functions and teams as a potential source of inspiration to transform the teams’ understanding of work.

    In this paper our aim is to investigate the role of cross-boundary collaboration (CBC) for team learning and proactivity, and identify hindrances and prerequisites for such collaboration. In the first study we test a model of how CBC impact team proactivity through team learning. In the second study we investigate qualitative differences between how close-to the-production specialists describe their CBC with stagnant teams (1 SD below mean on team proactivity in study 1) and proactive teams (1 SD above mean in study 1), and how managers support and engage in CBC.

  • 9.
    Lantz Friedrich, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology. Fritz Change AB, Stocksund, Sweden.
    Sjöberg, Anders
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Friedrich, Peter
    Leaned teamwork fattens workplace innovation: The relationship between task complexity, team learning and team proactivity2016In: European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, ISSN 1359-432X, E-ISSN 1464-0643, Vol. 25, no 4, p. 561-569Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Our aim is to contribute to research on workplace innovation by identifying tasks within industrial Lean Production Systems (LPS) that can trigger the involvement of teams in workplace innovation. Previous research has shown negative effects of LPS for employees’ motivation, learning, and innovation processes. The principles of job design of production tasks, e.g., standardization and routinization, are seemingly opposed to a job design that supports team’s engagement in workplace innovation. In this study, we explored relations between task complexity, team learning, and proactivity. Work task analysis was conducted at baseline among 41 teams to capture the complexity of different work tasks. Eight months later, employees completed a questionnaire about team-learning processes, and managers rated each team’s proactivity. Three kinds of tasks were identified. The results showed that the main work task and supplementary tasks gave no input to the team’s learning process. Mediation analysis showed that additional work tasks, taking little time, have an impact on team proactivity through team learning. A conclusion is that teams within LPS can be engaged in workplace innovation depending on how they take on additional tasks, as these impact team learning. The implications for future research and practice are discussed.

  • 10.
    Lantz Friedrich, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Sjöberg, Anders
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Friedrich, Peter
    Leaned teamwork fattens workplace innovation: the relationship between task complexity, team learning and team proactivity2017In: Creativity and Innovation in Organizations: Current Research and Recent Trends in Management / [ed] José Ramos, Neil Anderson, José M. Peiró, Fred Zijlstra, Routledge, 2017Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Previous research has shown negative effects of LPS for employees’ motivation, learning, and innovation processes. The principles of work design of production tasks within LPS are seemingly opposed to a work design that supports team’s engagement in workplace innovation. In this study, we explored relations between task complexity, team learning, and team innovation processes. Work task analysis was conducted at baseline among 41 teams to capture the complexity of different work tasks. Eight months later employees completed a questionnaire about team learning processes, and managers rated each team’s proactivity. Three kinds of tasks were identified. The results showed that the main work task and supplementary tasks gave no input to the team’s learning process. Mediation analysis showed that additional work tasks, taking little time, have an impact on team proactivity through team learning. Our conclusion is that teams within LPS can be engaged in workplace innovation depending on how they take on additional tasks, as these impact team learning. The implications for future research and practice are discussed.

  • 11.
    Lantz Friedrich, Annika
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Ulber, Daniela
    Why Are We in a Team? Effects of Teamwork and How to Enhance Team Effectiveness2017In: An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: An International Perspective / [ed] Nik Chmiel, Franco Fraccaroli, Magnus Sverke, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2017, 3, p. 212-232Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Many organizations have structured their work around teams, and most people have an experience of teamwork where they have felt the joy of accomplishing things together, learning from others, and getting good and rewarding results. There are many reasons for why people work in teams, including managerial beliefs that teamwork can be beneficial to organizational effectiveness. We start this chapter by describing positive outcomes of teamwork for the individual, the team and the organization. In a second step, we define teams and distinguish them from other groupings. It is not always that teams are effective. How can effects of teamwork be explained and thus be enhanced? In the following sections, we first outline a model of effective teamwork and then go deeper into aspects and processes that research has shown to be important for team effectiveness. We finish with an overview of the main findings and discuss how contextual and situational aspects impact team processes, and how factors on individual, team and organizational levels interact.

  • 12.
    Sconfienza, Carolina
    et al.
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Lindfors, Petra
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Lantz Friedrich, Annika
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Sverke, Magnus
    Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Work and organizational psychology.
    Social support at work and mental distress: A three-wave study of normal, reversed, and reciprocal relationships2019In: Journal of Occupational Health, ISSN 1341-9145, E-ISSN 1348-9585, Vol. 61, no 1, p. 91-100Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Objectives: This longitudinal study aimed to investigate the causal relationships between social support at work and mental health in terms of mental distress. Despite assuming social support at work to be associated with less mental distress, reversed and reciprocal relationships were investigated as well.

    Methods: Self-reports in questionnaires of social support and mental distress were collected longitudinally, with annual measurements over three consecutive years, among 301 office workers (57% women) in Sweden. Cross-lagged structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses.

    Results: The reciprocal causation model was considered the best-fitting model. The results suggest that social support and mental distress influenced each other negatively, but with a delayed effect. Specifically, this involves Time 1 levels of social support being negatively associated with Time 2 levels of mental distress, while Time 2 levels of mental distress were negatively associated with Time 3 levels of support.

    Conclusions: The findings partly align with the hypothesis that social support is related to lower levels of mental distress but also suggest that mental distress can reduce levels of social support. While the findings also suggest a mutual interrelation between social support and mental distress, this is not a consistent reciprocal causation. Rather, and due to the variation in reciprocity between time points, it appears to he a cyclical process, which needs further investigation.

1 - 12 of 12
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf