Change processes for attractive work in small manufacturing companies

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol. 19 (1) 35–63 (2009)C© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20133

Change Processes for Attractive Work in SmallManufacturing Companies

Mattias Ateg, Ing-Marie Andersson, and Gunnar RosenDalarna University, Borlange, Sweden

ABSTRACT

The article originates from research in interaction between researchers and companies in a network,which has led to an increasing awareness among managers on issues such as reasons behind difficul-ties in attracting competent labor. Particularly, attention has been directed toward the importance ofwork environment improvements that increase the attractivity of industrial work. To deal with suchchallenges, for more than 5 years a number of small engineering companies, with research support,have been engaged in change processes based on the concept of attractive work. The purpose of thearticle is to develop knowledge and understanding for how small engineering companies can createmore attractive work. One goal is to make it possible to draw conclusions about the employees’ expe-riences of changes in the attractivity of industrial work. Efforts in this direction have been conductedthrough work environment assessments (before and after the changes) and through administration ofa questionnaire. The results show that it is possible to analyze how employees experience changes inthe attractivity of work. This is most interesting from the perspective that the results can be used forassisting further improvements. C© 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the context of improving competitiveness and productivity, and understanding the costs ofsickness absence and industrial injuries, it has been recognized that healthy work is central tosuccessful employment policies. Demographic changes, labor shortages in particular sectors,and unhealthy work present new challenges, which need to be addressed in new ways. Many“old problems” such as physical and chemical exposure are still present together with newertopics concerning, for example, psychosocial factors. Also, the majority of workplaces,which are small, are not well equipped with expertise in or have access to health and safetyrepresentatives (Ennals, 2002). Also, small companies seldom have enough experience,time, and incentive to develop and implement preventive solutions, even if solutions doexist (Swuste, Hale, & Pantry, 2003). In this context, Ennals (2002) put forward the questionof how knowledge derived from research can be put into practice, but also how results ofinterventions can be assessed. Particularly, this concerns which indicators to use in assessingquality in work and which can be used to assist further improvements at other workplaces(Ennals, 2002).

In Sweden as well as in the rest of Europe, most small companies do not seem to perceivea need for support regarding occupational health and safety. Instead, they often describe

Correspondence to: Mattias Ateg, Hogskolan Dalarna, SE-781 88 Borlange, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]

35

36 ATEG ET AL.

their own working environment as good, although it has been shown that the need is actuallygreatest in small companies. At the same time, experiences have indicated that many smallcompanies can manage a change process themselves with limited support, at least undercircumstances when motivation exists to put in the required time and effort (Antonsson,Birgersdotter, & Bornberger-Dankvardt, 2002; Walters, 2001). Support can be provided bychange agents, or professional consultants, with emphasis on prevention, interdisciplinarycooperation, and relations built on trust, which has increased the importance of practice-related experience and enhanced the development of dialogue-based methods (Limborg,2001).

The work environment can significantly affect many aspects of work. The physicalwork environment affects job satisfaction, communication, performance and productivity,feelings such as fatigue, relaxedness, and happiness. Psychosocial aspects of the work envi-ronment have been recognized to have a strong influence on job satisfaction, absenteeism,performance and productivity, and people’s sense of well being (Bjorklund, 2001).

The way societies understand work has changed throughout history (Kira, 2003). Duringthe last century, several work paradigms have had as a goal to create attractive work,for example, the rationalization movement and the human relations movement. Both havestriven to create attractive work, increase work motivation, and contribute to productivity. Inthe 1960s and 1970s, many industrial countries faced a situation where industrial work wasnot attractive. New ways to organize work needed to be developed to meet the labor shortage.The sociotechnical systems thinking, which aimed at combining the good of the employeeswith the good of the company, was perceived as a solution to attract workers (Kira, 2003).

Ateg, Hedlund, and Ponten (2004) has studied the usage of the concept of attractive workand found that little research has been done with a point of departure in the concept. Thatis, however, the case in this study, with a network of small engineering workshops that fora number of years have been engaged in change processes to create more attractive work asa focal point.

1.1. Purpose and Aim

The purpose of this article is to develop knowledge and understanding of how small en-gineering companies can create more attractive work through change processes. It focuseson how change processes can be initiated, taking the application of various methods inan interactive collaboration between researchers and companies as the point of departure.One aim is to make it possible to draw conclusions about experiences of changes in theattractivity of the work based on the described processes, work environment assessments,and employees’ perceptions of the work’s attractivity.

1.2. Attractive Work

The concept attractive means “having the quality of attracting or tending to attract.” Attrac-tivity can be described as “having the quality of drawing (living beings) by influencing theirwill and action,” and “having the quality of attracting attention, interest, affection, or otherpleasurable emotion” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989). Attractive work is here viewed aswork that stimulates positive attention through its positive characteristics, even in the longterm and with closer experiences.

The concept of attractive work appears to a limited extent in research literature, but thereare some examples of use. However, it has chiefly been used in headers and conclusions, not

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing DOI: 10.1002/hfm

CHANGE PROCESSES FOR ATTRACTIVE WORK IN SMALL MANUFACTURING COMPANIES 37

in theoretical or empirical treatments. The attractivity of work cannot be evaluated usingobjective parameters; there is no scale to gauge the dimensions and qualities of importance.Instead the choice falls to measuring experiences or perceptions of work’s attractivity.

Measurements of emplyees’ experiences have been used in analysis of a wide range ofjob factors, for example, management of change, the opportunities to develop oneself atwork, and social climate (Seppala & Klemola, 2004).

To develop an understanding of attractive work, the concept has previously been chartedbased on interviews (Ateg et al., 2004). A model of attractive work was thereby produced,divided into three categories: attractive work content, work satisfaction, and attractive workconditions. Attractive work content includes dimensions dealing with aptitudes the em-ployee uses and characteristics encountered while carrying out the work. Work satisfactionencompasses dimensions dealing with aspects the employee perceives as resulting fromcarrying out the work. Attractive work conditions encompass dimensions describing thecircumstances surrounding the work, some of which are common to all employees at aworkplace (Ateg et al., 2004). The attractive work model (see the appendix) has been usedas an analytical tool as a basis for analyzing changes in the attractivity of log-house produc-tion work (Hedlund, 2006). Based on the model, a questionnaire has been drawn up withthe aim of measuring experiences of the attractivity of work.

1.3. Research Approach and Methods

When a central concept is the driving force behind a change process, the process canbe described as concept driven. Concept-driven change processes are viewed as built onconcepts or ideas, with a high level of participation within a company (Gustavsen, Wikman,Ekman Phillips, & Hofmaier, 1996). A central concept is adopted as a company policy, anda development organization is established that plans, mobilizes resources, organizes, andsupports the processes (Gustavsen, Hofmaier, Ekman Phillips, & Wikman, 1996).

In the change processes based on attractive work, the driving force is less explicit thanfor concept-driven change. The processes are more accurately described as concept based,using a less stringent view of the role played by the central concept. The concept—attractivework—has tended to be used as a point of departure and a source of inspiration for the changeprocesses.

Two systematic surveys have been carried out: one at the beginning of the period (autumn2000) and one at the end of the period (spring 2005). The autumn 2000 survey covered areassuch as employees’ views on ideal work and current work at the five companies (Hedlund,Ateg, Sconfienza, Andersson, & Rosen, 2003), as well as assessing the work environmentusing the WEST (Work Environment Screening Tool) method (Bengtsson & Berglund,1997). A follow-up was carried out in spring 2005, also including a questionnaire designedto measure experiences of changes in the attractivity of work.

1.3.1. The Attractive Work Questionnaire. The questionnaire (Dalarna University,2004) used to measure experiences of changes in the attractivity of work has been developedfrom the model of attractive work. Using a visual analogue scale (VAS), for 80 aspects theemployees marked how attractive they experienced their present work to be and how attrac-tive they experienced that their present work had been 2 years earlier. Thereby, a measureis given on the perceived change for each aspect. VAS constitutes a relatively objectivemethod of measuring individual experiences (Crichton, 2001; Kahl & Cleland, 2005).


38 ATEG ET AL.

Also, the employees were asked to mark in a similar way their experiences of theattractivity of work over an interval of 5 years. Times for the questionnaires were arrangedwith the companies’ managing directors or human resources managers, who were thenasked to notify the employees. The employees were called together for information and tocomplete the questionnaires in the presence of a researcher. This ensured a low level ofnonreporting among the respondents. However, not all employees were able to take part inthe survey, as they were working with customers or on jobs that had to be completed quickly,for example. Questionnaires and reply envelopes were therefore left with the contact peoplefor completion at a later stage.

1.3.2. Reliability and Validity of the Attractive Work Questionnaire. There aredifferent ways to measure reliability. For example, the questionnaire can be administeredat different times (test–retest reliability), or alternative formulations or interviews can beused (Davis et al., 2005; Sirkin, 1995). Test–retest reliability has to do with an individual’sconsistency in responding the same way over time. Causes for unreliability may lie invague or confusing questions. Still, if the responses have changed, one must be sure thatno intervening event has occurred between the first and the second administration of thequestionnaire (Sirkin, 1995).

Accordingly, there are difficulties in arranging a test–retest design, since work attractivitymay very well vary even if there has been no intended intervention aimed at influencing therespondents’ experiences. Furthermore, the respondents’ experiences can be expected to beinfluenced by answering the questionnaire in itself, since it is likely to contribute in makingthe respondents think about their work and its attractivity in a new way. Indeed, that is evenone of the goals with the attractive work questionnaire. Due to difficulties in convincingcompanies to be part of such a study, since their time for such activities is short, and thelimited time span for research, together with the expected difficulties in drawing conclusionsfrom the results, a test–retest study has not yet been made. Instead, the questions have beentested through interviews and close examination.

What is possible is to estimate the reliability through the correlation between the variablescomprising the scale (using Cronbach’s alpha). Such a reliability analysis has been con-ducted using SPSS 11.5 for Windows with the total number of respondents (87) in the fivecompanies. The results showed a correlation of .96. Internal consistency of the domains inthe questionnaire was tested using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency.The domains within the category attractive work content ranged from .91 to .62, with sevenout of eight domains having a consistency over .73. Within the category work satisfaction,the internal consistency of the six featured domains ranged from .74 to .84. Finally, withinthe category attractive work conditions, the internal consistency of the seven featured do-mains were above .70 for all but two domains, physical activity and practical work, with aninternal consistency of .35 and .55, respectively. Both of these domains have been alteredin a later version of the questionnaire.

Validity deals with to what extent the instrument measures the concept it is supposedto measure (construct validity) and measures all domains of that concept (content validity;Davis et al., 2005). The questionnaire has previously been tested for validity mainly throughinterviews, and some improvements were made.

1.3.3. A Motivating Mirror. One strategy applied in the change processes was based onwhat can be described as a mirror method, whereby a reflection of the engineering companieswas created using various tools and methods. The aim was to motivate the business leaders



and employees to get involved in the change processes for more attractive work, and tofacilitate and provide guidance. The methods treated both the internal context (i.e., the workenvironment and employees’ experiences of the work) and the external context (i.e., howyoung people and people in general view the companies).

A strategy called Moveit, which creates motivation and engagement for work environment-oriented change processes, has been used. The following six characteristics have beenidentified and considered particularly important in creating motivation:

• Interactivity—broad-based participation and involvement of employees.• Change competence—the participants create knowledge about how to implement

change.• Work environment knowledge—increasing insight into the workplace environment,

different factors, and how they can be addressed.• Room for action—participants perceive that the desired outcome can be achieved.• Systematism—guides through the process of change and contributes to creating a basis

for decision-making processes.• Integrability—routines that contribute to safeguarding implemented improvements,

stabilizing new working practices, and providing opportunities for evaluations andfurther improvements (Laring et al., 2005; Rosen, Andersson, & Ateg, 2005).

Within the frame of the strategy, researchers, experts, and other external actors can adoptan intervention approach based on process consultation to support motivation, putting focuson the participants’ own ability to generate information, identifying problems and findingsolutions based on their own experience of work (Birgersdotter, Schmidt, & Antonsson,2004; Eklof, 2004; Rosen, Andersson, & Ateg, 2005).

This approach, or Moveit strategy, is similar to many models of organizational change,which can support the planning and guiding of deliberate interventions in change pro-cesses. Such models have been described as (a) structuring the change process in phases,(b) involving relevant actors, (c) a change agent or director, (d) measuring and quantifyingresults, and (e) paying special attention to communication (Commissaris, Schoenmaker,Beune, & Eikhout, 2006).

The work has largely been conducted in accordance with the Moveit strategy, using awide range of methods and tools for the companies to select from, in consultation with theresearchers. Methods have also been developed. The methods used are presented in brief inTable 1.

Photo editing aims to create awareness of workplaces and work environment conditionsby manipulating and presenting digital images. The images are used in discussions betweenemployees, managers, and researchers, raising ideas and views.

A questionnaire on ideal work and industrial work was used to create a factual anddiscussion basis by studying young people’s and employees’ views (Hedlund et al., 2003).The results indicated no resistance to industrial work per se among young people, but higherdemands on the work environment, for example. The results formed the basis for discussionsand a starting point for change processes.

Focus groups (Cooper & Baber, 2005) were used based on the results from WEST andthe questionnaires, focusing on the attractivity of industrial work and work-environmentissues.

People in the street was based on filmed interviews with people in the area about somecentral issues, such as their view of the industry, industrial work, and work environment, to


40 ATEG ET AL.

TABLE 1. The Main Methods Used to Create Motivation and Engagement for the ChangeProcesses

Method Purpose Target Group

Photo editing Motivation, participation, proposedmeasures

Management,employees

Questionnaire on ideal/industrialwork

Motivation, reflection, decision data,evaluation


Focus groups Motivation, reflection, decision data Management,employees

People in the street Motivation, reflection ManagementMeetings with business leaders Motivation, reflection ManagementPIMEX (Picture Mix Exposure) Motivation, reflection, decision data,

evaluationEmployees

SAM in the small company(systematic work environmentmanagement)

Participation, proposed measures,evaluation


Tuttava/the OR process Motivation, participation, proposedmeasures, evaluation


WEST (Work EnvironmentScreening Tool)

Motivation, reflection, decision data,evaluation


give the business leaders an opportunity to compare their own perceptions to other people’sperceptions.

Meetings with business leaders relates to meeting entrepreneurs who talked about theirexperiences of development work. The aim was to enable the network to find out aboutgood examples.

PIMEX (Picture Mix Exposure) is used to identify causes of exposure to factors that couldtrigger health risks in workplaces, such as air pollution, noise, and vibrations. The methodis based on simultaneous measurement of a person’s exposure and filming of the worksituation, where the measurement result is shown in graphical form (Rosen, Andersson,Walsh, et al., 2005).

SAM in the small company means working with a consultant to organize and distributework tasks to satisfy Swedish legislation requirements on systematic work-environmentmanagement.

Tuttava/the Ordning och Reda (OR) process is a method for participatory goal setting andidentification of needs for technical and organizational improvements (Saari, 2000), based onmonitoring the levels of housekeeping through workplace-specific routines and checklists.Positive feedback is used for creating employee motivation (Dufort & Infante-Rivard, 1999).

WEST (Work Environment Screening Tool) is a quantitative evaluation of nine workenvironment factors: accidents, physical workload, noise, chemical health risks, vibra-tions, general physical environment, work climate, work content, and freedom of action(Bengtsson & Berglund, 1997).

1.4. The Network

In autumn 2000, surveys of young people’s and employees’ views of work and indus-trial work were initiated (Hedlund et al., 2003), along with assessments of the network



companies’ work environment. At the beginning of 2001, the results of the work environ-ment surveys and questionnaires were presented, discussed, and analyzed together with thecompanies in the network. This resulted in the insight that action should be taken withinthe network to increase interest, among young people in particular, in applying for jobsin the engineering industry. Actions were taken in several areas, one example being anextensive joint activity in the network to increase the number of students in the upper sec-ondary school’s industrial program in the locality in autumn 2001. The companies regardedthe program’s students as an important source of future labor. A work group comprisingrepresentatives of the companies, local authority, and upper secondary school, as well asa researcher, was set up to increase interest in the industrial program in the long term. Inspring 2002, the interest had increased dramatically (Ateg, 2005).

The approach presented here is research support in change processes for more attractivework at the companies. One of the researchers was accepted as a member in the network.Participation in the network meetings has resulted in extensive interaction, an exchangeof information, and a wide range of combined activities. Being a member in the networkbrought several advantages: following the agenda at the meetings, the companies sharedinformation about factors influencing their operations (e.g., changed competition), invest-ments in new machinery, backlog, economy, occupational health and safety, recruitment,and so on. This, together with close interaction with the individual companies and managers,made it possible for the researchers to have information on factors that could be influencingthe attractivity of work.

During the period in which development of attractive work in the network companieswas monitored, the number of companies varied slightly as some companies have left thenetwork and others have joined, partly as the result of an enlistment drive.

1.5. The Five Case Companies

The five companies included in the study are Company A (heavy industry company), B(coarse sheet metal company), C (sheet metal cutting company), D (subcontract weldingcompany), and E (light metal company). The study was thus limited to five of the tencompanies in the network. The five included companies that had been members of thenetwork during the whole period of study (with the exception of Company C, which left thenetwork for approximately 1 year, but still took part in its activities). The other companiesbecame members at later dates, the latest during the last year of the project. The numberof companies in the network has varied from five to ten. This study deals with changeprocesses at five of those companies. The selection is based partly on the five companies’active involvement in the network over a long period and partly on their early participationin change processes. The other companies were excluded since they had not been taken partin neither during most of the period, although all 10 companies were involved in the end.

Company A and Company B belong to the same corporate group focusing on technicalproducts and services for the heavy processing and engineering industry. Company A has65 employees, 56 of whom are in production. Its operations focus on production, repair, andmaintenance of machinery and spare parts, with particular emphasis on heavy machinery.The company has six departments: administration, tendering, projects, machining workshop,sheet metal workshop, and repairs.

Company B has 35 employees, 29 of whom are in production, and has operations incoarse sheet metalworking, large constructions and production, assembly, and renovationof machinery.


42 ATEG ET AL.

Company C has 13 employees, 11 of whom are in production. The company focuses onfigure-cutting sheet metal for engineering companies and steel suppliers, and specializes infine plasma and thick sheet metal. Company C withdrew from the network from mid-2002until rejoining in 2004.

Company D has 17 employees, 14 of whom are in production, and specializes in manufac-turing welded stainless products, heavy-plate constructions, and machining and assembly.

Company E has 25 employees, 22 of whom are in production, and manufactures aluminumproducts, primarily equipment for the disabled in the form of access ramps. Company Ealso works with expanded metal in carbon steel and aluminum, and anodizing of aluminumproducts.

2. RESULTS

The development processes in focus have taken place in the context of the network. However,it is at the company level that processes based on the concept of attractive work can mostclearly be studied.

2.1. Change Processes for Attractive Work

Below a description is made of how the change processes are presented and displayed,followed by a brief description of central and decisive courses of events at the individualcompanies.

2.1.1. Development Curve, Displaying Change Processes. The change processesare based on the aim of creating attractive work. All the companies have based their actionson data contributed by the researchers at an early stage. The way the processes havedeveloped is, however, different in the separate companies, which is shown in a visualform in the figures. Presenting information in this way is called displaying: to organize andcompress information into an accessible compact form. However, the design and use ofdisplay is not separate from analysis. It is in itself an analytic activity and therefore formspart of the analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Organizational change can be seen as being built upon an interactive logic where changefollows an intention that is translated into action. The action brings consequences, makingit important to adjust the action and maybe to modify the intentions (Nonas, 2005). Such aninteractive logic presupposes that change processes can be understood in terms of differentsets of activity, or “levels.” To bring understanding of the change processes for attractivework, three levels of activity are used. The different levels can be viewed as a representationof the change processes regarding the most emergent kind of activities in each point oftime. The three levels are a diagnosis level, an intentional level, and an action level. Thedivision into levels is a tool for presenting and analyzing the depth of the change processes.However, it is important to note that the levels and curves are used to display qualitativedata and are not based on measurements.

It could be expected that a higher level of activity in the processes (i.e., longer or a highernumber of activities at the action level) implies that employees to a higher degree perceive anincrease in attractivity than a lower level of activity (i.e., shorter or lower number of activitiesat the action level). However, it is not to be expected that it is a linear connection, since theindividual’s view on what makes work attractive varies and the activities conducted are notlikely to cover that variation. The model of attractive work (Ateg et al., 2004) contains a total



of 80 aspects, which are represented in the questionnaire. In short, activities to increase theattractivity of work in a change process do not necessarily comply with all the employees’views on how to make work more attractive.

The diagnosis level is the most fundamental level, where surveys and analyses are used tocreate descriptions of prevailing and desirable conditions, which are then used in discussions.Methods and work approaches aim to map situations and create motivation and engagementamong employees. Management may also provide support at this level. The intention levelis the explicit intention that action should be taken with the aim of influencing the prevailingcondition in the desired direction, that is, creating improved concordance with internaland external demands on the organization. Methods and work approaches that help initiatedevelopment activities and guide the change process may constitute support. In the actionlevel, intentional actions have begun to influence the organization and the experiences ofthe work perceived by those affected. The change processes impact on the organization inthe shape of new work forms, procedures, and relations, for example.

The aim of displaying the change processes is to show which activity level has been mostprominent over different periods. The graphs show the change process in relation to thethree levels over time. The lined squares indicate activities at the different levels, such assurveys and discussions, the application of methods, explicit intentions, or implementationof development initiatives.

2.1.2. The Heavy Industry Company (A). In autumn 2000, Company A’s three pro-duction departments were located on different premises. Questionnaire surveys indicatedsome areas that were considered important to develop. These were performance-related pay;a fair and understanding manager; a good physical environment; high pay levels; and calm,safe, well-organized work.

The WEST survey identified the factors that clearly pulled down the average: accidents,physical load, noise, and the general physical environment, such as poor organization,cramped and untidy conditions, and insufficient lighting. The company also scored relativelypoorly on freedom of action due to strict control based on the demand for fast delivery times.

Company A (see Figure 1) had a long diagnosis phase, despite early statements fromthe managing director about how the company was striving to become more attractive. He

Figure 1 Development curve for Company A.


44 ATEG ET AL.

expressed concern about the company’s age structure and increasing sick leave, among otherfactors.

It was not until early autumn 2002 that change processes were initiated as the company wascontacted with a proposal to test the photo editing method, which was under development.The aim of the method was to create awareness of work environment conditions amongmanagement and employees. It was hoped that the method would encourage discussionabout the work environment and other issues important to the attractivity of work. For thecompany, the initiative came at the right time. Extensive relocations of the sheet metalworkshop and repair workshop were being planned for premises adjacent to the head officeand machinery workshop, as well as expansion and renovation of staff and office spaces.Project groups had been appointed and meetings held giving the employees an opportunityto express their views. Using photo editing, the researchers added to the discussion withproposed transport routes and marked storage areas in an overall image of the sheet metalworkshop. The welding area was given local exhaust ventilation, more light fittings, newpartition walls, and housekeeping was improved. The difference between the edited imagesand the actual environments was obvious. The images gave rise to a lively discussion amongsheet metal workshop employees in which the managing director also took part. The issue oflocal exhaust ventilation became particularly material, with employees wanting a solutionlike the one in the edited image. The managing director agreed and after the meeting he andone of the employees went to look at suitable systems.

Changes had already been planned at the company but no conscious link had been madeto creating more attractive work. Discussions and methods helped create an awarenessof how the planned changes and involvement of employees gave opportunities to createmore attractive work and an improved work environment. The photo editing method wasan important point of departure for these discussions between researchers, personnel, andmanagement. Several of the proposals presented in the images were also carried out later,such as transport routes, local exhaust ventilation with built-in lighting, and new partitionwalls combined with tool boards.

In early 2003 the relocation of the workshop departments had been completed. As earlyas spring 2003, the managing director reported that productivity had increased, while at thesame time he experienced the company as more attractive. The marked transport routes,however, were quite poorly adhered to, mainly in the sheet metal workshop. The managingdirector put forward various explanations such as habit, high workload, and colleagues’work routines.

In a network context, however, the managing director was still concerned about sickleave and repetitive strain injuries. An ergonomics project was therefore carried out inwhich a company nurse, an ergonomics consultant, and a researcher reviewed the variousdepartments. The way the material was placed needed to be changed in the machiningworkshop. In many instances, employees had to lift heavy parts off the floor. Loading palletswere mounted on frames to create a suitable work height. In the sheet metal workshop, thelighting was inadequate in some areas. At the same time there was a lack of designatedplaces for tools and equipment. The company decided to test the OR process to create betterorganization and tidiness, with support from a researcher and the ergonomics consultant.

Work on OR began in spring 2003. All production departments were affected and a workgroup comprising representatives from the departments was set up to drive the process for-ward. The work group drew up the good work procedures on which the measurements wereto be based. The areas affected were the handling and storage of goods, refuse and scrap,handling of tools, emergency exits and transport routes, cleaning of machinery, fire safety,



chemical health risks, and work vehicles, along with working methods, orders, and process-ing. The researcher and ergonomics consultant proposed suitable measurement points forthe method, and these were then discussed in the work group. The first measurement wascompleted in the autumn. The company achieved 47% of the measurement points in total.Before all the employees were notified, the work group reviewed the results and discussedcarrying out a major cleaning operation to boost the process. The employees also empha-sized the need for a major cleaning operation. The following measurements carried outshowed that the company’s results increased from 47% to 58% and then 73% of achievedmeasurement points.

After the third measurement, the company would conduct the OR process without support.In early 2004, however, the attitude to OR was negative in the sheet metal workshop.Despite this the department’s results were good, with 70% of the procedures fulfilled. Aresearcher and ergonomics consultant decided to meet the employees at the sheet metalworkshop without the company’s managing director. The employees were upset that ithad been suggested that they consciously blocked accessibility in the transport routes. Theemployees pointed out that different priorities conflicted with one another. On the one handthere was a clear limit to the proportion of work time not billed directly to customers, andon the other hand there were requirements on organization and tidiness.

By the end of 2004 it was clear that the change process had continued without externalsupport. Employees continued to strive for a tidy, well-organized workplace, and investmentswere made to further improve working postures and reduce loads. In the sheet metalworkshop, work areas and tools were kept in good order, although certain goods were stillplaced in the transport routes.

The company’s managing director reported that the discussions at the company had beenextended to the work organization. Proposals from the employees were more spontaneous,they seemed to be more satisfied, and there was a better atmosphere. He went on toexplain that productivity is higher at a workplace that is pleasant and safe, and peopleare generally happier. All in all, the managing director felt the situation had improved atthe company, although he had been unable to check the employees’ perceptions. He wastherefore interested in the follow-up surveys that were carried out in spring 2005.

2.1.3. The Coarse Sheet Metal Company (B). Company B’s survey of employees’views of work in 2000 emphasized the following as important areas to develop: goodphysical environment, fair and understanding manager, high pay levels, appreciation frommanager and colleagues, and being able to use imagination and creativity.

The factors in the WEST survey, which most clearly contributed to risks, were accidents,noise, chemical health risks, freedom of action, and the general physical environment, inparticular poor organization and cramped, untidy conditions but also localized lighting in alot of places.

Discussions were held between the researchers and the company about the results of thesurveys, primarily with regard to WEST, where the identified risks were relatively highcompared to the other companies in the network.

For a long while the company was mainly involved in discussions about the attractivity ofthe work that took place in the network, but without intention to carry out change processesat the workplace. This explains why Company B (see Figure 2) spent a long time in thediagnosis phase.

In spring 2002, the company’s management intended to initiate change processes for moreattractive work. The managing director and production manager agreed on the need for action


46 ATEG ET AL.

2000 2005-03-01 -02 -04 Year

Lev

elof

acti

vity

Action level

Intention level

Diagnosis level

Figure 2 Development curve for Company B.

and deemed the OR process, which they knew from other members of the network, a suitablemethod to start with. The company had previously experienced difficulties in achieving betterorganization and tidiness. The researchers offered support and a meeting was arranged. Agroup of employees would be active participants. At the time for the meeting, however, theemployees had not been notified and no work group had been appointed. Nevertheless themanaging director and production manager were convinced that the OR process would be agood start. A new time was therefore arranged for after the summer. The expressed intentioncame to an abrupt halt when the company was forced to implement cutbacks.

The management has expressed support for change processes at other companies in thenetwork—of which the company’s production manager became chairman—but has notworked to create more attractive work within its own walls. In spring 2005 there was aninterest in following up the surveys on work environment and the employees’ views, butwithout any explicit ambition of making changes.

2.1.4. The Sheet Metal Cutting Company (C). The workshop premises at CompanyC mainly comprise large, around 2 m wide, 3–4 m long and often coarse sheet metal, stackedin piles.

The survey into employees’ views of the work revealed a number of key areas fordevelopment: calm, safe and well-organized work; opportunities for advancement; andperformance-related pay. The WEST questionnaire identified the main risks factors: ac-cidents, noise, and general physical environment, but also social climate and freedom ofaction.

Company C (see Figure 3), which left the network between mid-2002 and 2004, carriedout major changes with clear effects. During this period there was no regular interaction withresearchers regarding the development of more attractive work. Following the company’sexpansion, however, the management’s interest in attractive work grew. There were threereasons: with a higher number of employees, a need for personnel welfare initiatives wereperceived; the company was striving for further expansion; and an awareness regarding theneed for creating organization and tidiness in the management of tools, materials, customercontacts, and paperwork procedures, and in improving the work environment.



Figure 3 Development curve for Company C.

In spring 2003, a representative of Company C was present at the network meetingwhen the invited business leader talked about experiences of the OR process. A few monthslater, the human resources and finance manager at Company C contacted the researchersto discuss the possibility of using the OR process combined with photo editing to initiateinterest in the issue at the workplace. The ergonomics consultant who had previously takenpart in the OR process at several companies in the network, including Company A, wascontacted to provide additional support in the process. Work on the photo editing washandled by one of the researchers who also took part in work on OR.

The company decided to start the photo editing project but delay presentation of theresults until spring 2004. In early 2004, the company made a request to start work onthe OR process, due to a serious incident involving an employee who injured a leg whenclimbing over a pile of sheet metal that began to move. Everyone at the company, thatis the 12 employees, the managing director, and the human resources manager, took partin the introductory meeting and discussion of the results of photo editing. The discussionmainly concentrated on a general image, with a proposal for marked transport routes. Theemployees were positive toward the proposal but could see difficulties relating to the storageof sheet metal.

The employees were informed about the OR process, and a work meeting with allemployees was arranged to define good work procedures. The employees went around thepremises writing down proposals, which were then discussed, resulting in 36 procedures.It turned out that some procedures required special action if they were to be fulfilled,for example, “Use exhaust ventilation” because there was no such system in place. Adecision was taken that an OR group would measure to what degree the procedures werebeing adhered to. The measurement process included preparing action plans for requiredmeasures, deciding who was to be responsible and when they should be implemented. Theprocedures encompassed workshop premises, offices, staff areas, and the outdoor stock.

In the first measurement, the OR group deemed that 15 of the 36 good procedures hadbeen fulfilled. The results were posted at the workplace and comparisons made with sub-sequent measurements. Several improvements were implemented. For example, an exhaustventilation system was acquired. After the fourth measurement, the company would conductthe process without support.


48 ATEG ET AL.

In spring 2005 the sheet metal company was in the process of recruiting two employees,and aimed to expand with a new department within 2 years. This would require buildingextensions and the recruitment of further coworkers. In the autumn, the company decidedto stop measurements of the OR process. According to the human resources manager,there had been a positive development at the company and the development approachhad been strengthened. The employees took greater responsibility for production and cus-tomers, although they no longer seemed equally focused on their own work environmentand work situation. Nevertheless, investments were made to improve the existing exhaustventilation for a cutting machine because the old construction was not considered efficientenough.

2.1.5. The Subcontract Welding Company (D). The development areas identified inthe survey of employees’ views at Company D were: fair and understanding manager; highpay levels; performance-related pay; and calm, safe, and well-organized work. Appreciationfrom the manager and colleagues and a good physical environment were also important.

The WEST survey highlighted noise and chemical health risks, particularly weldingfumes since the local exhaust ventilation was not being used effectively. Straightening ofsheet metal was a major source of noise. In the general physical environment, inadequatelighting and a lack of organization and tidiness were also emphasized. The company did,however, perform relatively well for factors such as accidents, social climate, and workcontent.

Company D (see Figure 4) was early to initiate activities to bring about more attractivework.

Company D and Company E decided in autumn 2001 to carry out focus groups withsupport from researchers in order to increase participation, enable the change processesto be based on employees’ experiences, and making the most of employees’ ideas andsuggestions. The discussions centered on work environment issues, that is, how to reduceexposure to welding fumes. The employees claimed they already knew enough about theproblem, but that some did not use the exhaust ventilation since it was hard to get it to workeffectively. The attractivity of industrial work was also discussed. Employees were critical

2000 2005-03-01 -02 -04 Year

Lev

elof

acti

vity

Action level

Intention level

Diagnosis level

Figure 4 Development curve for Company D.



about the work environment, which was seen as the main obstacle to the work’s attractivity.The work was described as dirty, untidy, and poorly organized.

Company D quickly reached an intention level with a clear standpoint. Efforts were madeat the action level, primarily relating to renovations of the shower areas and improvementsin lighting. The canteen, which employees described as “quite miserable,” also neededmodernizing. A recent departure of a supervisor, which both employees and the managingdirector had been discontent with, increased the possibility to discuss and carry out changes.It was, however, a long time before the next activity at the action level, despite clear ambitionsfrom the management. Primarily due to a lack of opportunities for the company’s managingdirector to prioritize the change processes, repeated attempts were required to reach theaction level. Even so, the company did carry out further activities.

The company’s managing director read a short report from the focus groups and dis-cussions were held with the researchers. Methods such as OR and PIMEX were identifiedas suitable support. Using PIMEX, some of the employees could reduce their exposureto welding fumes and identify more effective ways of using the exhaust ventilation. Twopeople were, however, unwilling to take part in the PIMEX process, one of whom didnot use the exhaust ventilation at all. In autumn 2002, work on OR began. An OR groupwas set up comprising the managing director and two employees, with support from oneresearcher. The group identified nine procedures and a checklist of measurement points.The aim was for the two employees in the OR group to conduct the measurements, initiallywith support from the researcher. At the first measurement, the company achieved 34% ofthe measurement points. The OR group then presented the procedures and results to the restof the employees. The reception was positive and everyone took part in discussions abouthow the results could be improved.

During the second measurement, in spring 2003, the proportion of fulfilled measurementpoints had increased to 54%, but without any tangible measures having been implemented.This raised the question of whether the measurement result was dependent on variations inthe company’s production. The OR group decided to introduce transport routes, mark placesfor tools and working materials, and make the checklist available to all employees. Thecompany, however, had difficulties prioritizing work on OR. In the autumn, the company’smanaging director asked for further support from the researcher. A third measurement hadrecently been carried out with marginal improvement. To create additional motivation, thephoto editing method was used. Moreover, all old material in the workshop would be clearedout, and designated places created for materials and tools.

All employees took part in discussions based on photo editing and the cleaning operationarranged by the managing director. The OR group suggested that the cleaning could becarried out based on the checklist, and indicated the benefits of a clear-out operation andof creating structure. The employees pointed out several shortcomings and appropriatemeasures, from simple painting work to new ventilation solutions. The managing directorhad already made plans for most of the proposals. In addition he intended to renovatethe canteen and create an outdoor area for the employees. The managing director alsoencouraged the employees to continue to discuss issues with one another, with him, andwith the OR group.

One complication during the cleaning operation was that the company was in the processof working on two large drill crowns, each weighing 24 tons. A lot of time and peoplewere needed to move the parts. Afterward, it was noted that the cleaning should have beenpostponed until the drill crowns had been delivered. There was not enough time to organizethe tools and materials.


50 ATEG ET AL.

One week later the fourth measurement was carried out. As one employee in the ORgroup was absent, the researcher took part in the assessments. However, this affected theassessment, making it more critical than the earlier ones. This was reflected in the results,which despite the measures showed a decline of 10 percentage points. The managing directorwas aware that the researcher’s presence had affected the assessment and that the cleaningoperation had not achieved the measures that would lead to an improvement in the checklist,but he was still visibly disappointed. The subsequent intention was that the company wouldcarry out the measurements and measures itself.

Clear results could be observed in spring 2005. The canteen had been renovated andthere was an outdoor area. Shelves with marked places and pigeonholes were in place forall employees. Transport routes and loading zones had been labeled. Machinery had beenmoved, partly to create better space. Some employees were still not properly using theexhaust ventilation. Research support had been available in the process-oriented activities.The company carried out other developments internally, for example, renovations of staffareas. The upturn in the development curve at the end of 2005 is mainly due to improvementsin the physical work environment, for example, lighting, air quality, and climate.

2.1.6. The Light Metal Company (E). The development areas identified from the em-ployees’ views of work at Company E were: opportunities for advancement, good physicalenvironment, involvement in important decisions, high pay levels, and being able to useimagination and creativity.

The statements deemed to be fulfilled in the current work related to having a fair andunderstanding manager; feeling appreciated by the manager and work colleagues; hav-ing a secure position with a regular income; calm, safe, and well-organized work; andperformance-related pay.

The WEST survey highlighted noise, risk of accident, and chemical health risks. Thechemical risks, mainly associated with surface treatment, indicated a need for more safetyequipment. The company had a good score in relation to other companies in the networkfor all nine work-environment factors, in particular for accidents, physical workload, socialclimate, and freedom of action.

The development curve for Company E (see Figure 5) shows a long period at the actionlevel, due to work with SAM (systematic work environment management). Focus groupswith researcher support were used in autumn 2001, to which the managing director de-voted extensive attention. In the groups, the attractivity of industrial work, pay level, workenvironment, job status, further education, and development in the job were emphasized.Work environment, in particular noise, was an important issue in all groups. The managingdirector’s ambition to create more attractive work was clear, and initiatives were swiftlyplanned and carried out in several areas. Despite a number of initiatives, there were stillmajor sources of noise.

Several possible improvements in the work environment were pointed out, from liftingaids and vertically adjustable tables to dust problems during cleaning. The company’smanaging director had looked into the potential for reducing exposure to dust duringcleaning, but the investments were large and the results uncertain. Using PIMEX, differentways of cleaning were evaluated in order to reduce the dust problems. PIMEX was alsoused to study exposure to welding fumes.

In early 2002, a new WEST survey was carried out prior to the introduction of the SAMproject. The results showed major differences compared with the first WEST questionnaire



Figure 5 Development curve for Company E.

just over a year earlier. The risks were assessed as far lower for accidents and chemicalhealth risks. The improvement for conditions for social climate and work content wasconsiderable. At the same time, the assessment of noise, general physical environment,and freedom of action showed a slight deterioration. To achieve further improvements, thecompany decided, with the support of two work environment consultants, to carry out aSAM course in accordance with the “SAM in the small company” method.

A follow-up was conducted during the autumn, which noted that work environment issueswere brought up for discussion more often than before. The company also worked to createorganization and tidiness, but without method support. Security rounds were carried outregularly and group meetings were held about the work environment. Two machines hadbeen identified as major sources of noise, and had been screened off using sound-insulatingmaterials.

After the SAM project, the company intended to carry out further changes. In spring 2005,the company had an explicit goal of doubling turnover through more active cultivation ofoverseas markets. Extensive recruitment was needed to achieve that goal. It was, however,difficult to attract competent personnel with engineering experience.

2.2. Attempts to Evaluate: Work Environment and Atractivity

A summary of results from a follow-up of the WEST method is presented next. The resultsof the survey regarding how employees experience changes in the attractivity of work arealso presented.

2.2.1. Assessments of Work Environment by WEST. The results of the two WESTsurveys conducted at different times, divided into a total of nine work environment factorsat five companies, produce a large quantity of data. The results of the work environmentassessments are reported in Table 2. The work environment factor vibrations is not includedas it has not been a prioritized area and has only changed marginally.

Accidents: Measures have mainly been focused on reducing the risk of overloading thebody, for example, by investing in lifting tables. Accident risks have also been reducedby improving tidiness in transport routes and similar places.


52 ATEG ET AL.

TABLE 2. Change in Assessment of the WEST Method’s Work Environment Factors

Company A B C D E

Accidents + + + ++ + + ++Physical load + + + + + + + ++Noise + – –Chemical health risks + + + + + + ++ ++General physical environment + + + + + + + + + + ++Conditions for social climate + – + + + ++ + + +Work content ++ – + + ++Freedom of action + ++ + + +

Physical load: Initiatives in the form of various lifting devices have been the predominantmeasure.

Noise: Although noise was considered a priority area, none of the companies managed totake any successful action. The deterioration at Company C can primarily be attributedto a higher number of cutting machines and increased use of angle grinders.

Chemical health risks: Efforts to reduce chemical health risks have mainly concentratedon welding fumes, which were considered a high-priority work environment problem.Investments in and the use of local exhaust ventilation are the most important measures,but less welding has also had an impact.

General physical environment: General measures taken at the premises with a particularfocus on staff areas and increased space at the workplaces were the most importantchanges. General initiatives relating to tidiness and improved ventilation have alsocontributed.

Conditions for social climate: Greater contact among personnel and with customers is animportant change. Activities that promote good relations have increased strongly due toregular staff meetings.

Work content: The deterioration at Company B stemmed from the company’s reducedvariation in production. Advanced staff meetings with information and frequent oppor-tunities to propose improvements and action have been an important explanation, inparticular at Company E.

Freedom of action: Increased decentralization and delegation is evident, for exampleincreased authorization for employees when repairing and purchasing materials, in par-ticular at Company E.

2.2.2. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in the Attractivity of Work. Surveysof employees’ experiences of changes in the attractivity of work were carried out in spring2005. The response frequency among production employees was 66% for the five companiesin total. Company A had the lowest percentage of replies (50%) followed by Company D(64%), Company B (76%), Company E (77%), and Company C (100%).

The reported results are based on confirmed differences in accordance with the Wilcoxonsigned-rank test. A brief description is made whereby elements common to several compa-nies or distinctive to individual companies are highlighted. It is worth noting that Company



TABLE 3. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in Selected Aspects of the Work ConditionsCategory

Heavy Coarse Sheet Metal Subcontract LightIndustry Sheet Metal Cutting Welding Metal

(Company A) (Company B) (Company C) (Company D) (Company E)(n = 28) (n = 22) (n= 11) (n = 9) (n = 17)

Aspect More Less More Less More Less More Less More Less

I can do a good job ∗ ∗

with a moderatephysical workloadThe equipment is modern ∗ ∗ ∗

The noise level is good ∗ ∗

The premises and ∗ ∗

furnishings are goodThe air is good ∗ ∗

The premises are clean ∗∗∗ ∗ ∗

My job feels secure ∗∗∗ ∗ ∗

I receive information ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

about the companyConscious, innovative ∗ ∗ ∗

developmentMy immediate manager ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗

has confidence in meI have an influence and ∗∗ ∗ ∗

am involvedI mix with colleagues ∗ ∗

at workI mix with colleagues ∗∗∗ ∗

during breaksI co-operate with my ∗∗∗ ∗

colleagues

∗ = p < 0.05;∗∗ = P < 0.01; ∗∗∗ = p < 0.001.

A has a significant increase for 64 aspects. The other four companies have between 6(Company B) and 19 (Company E) confirmed increases. Company A had confirmed de-creases in good air quality, manual work, developmental work, and the importance of theirown efforts to the whole. Company B had confirmed decreases for modern equipment, agood noise level, and appreciation from management.

The report has been divided into the following dimensions: work conditions, work content,and work satisfaction. The tables show the reported aspects where there have been significantchanges.

2.2.2.1. Work conditions. Fourteen aspects from the work conditions category, whichincludes dimensions describing conditions for work, are reported (see Table 3). The physicalenvironment includes sound level, premises and furnishings, cleanliness of the premises, andair. The increase for premises, furnishing, and cleanliness is confirmed (p < 0.01), whichtallies with the investments in new premises and efforts relating to organization and tidiness.


54 ATEG ET AL.

TABLE 4. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in Selected Aspects of the Work Content Category


(Company A) (Company B) (Company C) (Company D) (Company E)(n = 28) (n = 22) (n = 11) (n= 9) (n = 17)


I know what the workday holds for me

∗ ∗

I am familiar with mywork

∗∗ ∗

I organize and steermy work

∗∗ ∗ ∗∗

The work isintensive, but alsoincludes quiet periodsand breaks

∗ ∗∗

I can choose how Icarry out my worktasks

∗∗ ∗

∗ =p < 0.05; ∗∗ =p < 0.01.

In the dimensions of relations and social contact, Company A showed an increase in col-laboration with work colleagues, but at the same time a decrease in mixing with colleaguesat work. One interpretation of this is that the employees perceive that they collaborate morewith one another, but at the same time there has been less scope for socializing around mat-ters not directly related to work tasks. At Company E there was a decrease for both aspects.One increase can be seen in that there is a team spirit at Company A and Company C.

2.2.2.2. Work content. Five aspects are reported from the work content category, whichincludes dimensions dealing with the aptitudes the employee uses and characteristics of thework (see Table 4).

2.2.2.3. Work satisfaction. Four aspects are reported from the work satisfaction cate-gory, which includes dimensions dealing with elements the employee perceives as resultingfrom carrying out the work (see Table 5).

2.2.2.4. Overall change in the attractivity of work. Employees’ views of the extentto which the attractivity of the work has changed overall have been measured for intervalsof 5 years and 2 years. Both intervals have been measured using a visual analogue scale.The results are in the range 0 to 100.

Regarding the employees’ views of the extent to which the attractivity of work haschanged over 2 years, the median value shows an increase for four of the companies (seeTable 6). However, the increase is only confirmed for Company D (p < 0.05).

Regarding how the work’s attractivity has changed over 5 years, all companies showedan increase (see Table 7). The increase for Company A is confirmed (p < 0.01).



TABLE 5. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in Selected Aspects of the Work SatisfactionCategory


(Company A) (Company B) (Company C) (Company D) (Company E)(n = 28) (n = 22) (n= 11) (n= 9) (n= 17)


I feel needed ∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗

I see direct results ofwhat I do

∗∗ ∗

I feel I’m doing agood job

∗∗ ∗

I am appreciated bymy immediatemanager

∗ ∗

∗ =p < 0.05; ∗∗ =p < 0.01.

TABLE 6. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in the Attractivity of the Work Over 2 Years


(Company A) (Company B) (Company C) (Company D) (Company E)(n = 28) (n= 22) (n = 11) (n = 9) (n = 17)

Year 2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005 2003 2005Median 48 50 54.5 55 50 63 43 58 57 56p ∗ (0.028)

∗ = p < 0.05.

TABLE 7. Employees’ Experiences of Changes in Work’s Attractivity Over 5 Years


(Company A) (Company B) (Company C) (Company D) (Company E)(n = 35) (n = 22) (n = 11) (n= 11) (n = 16)

Year 2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005 2000 2005Median 39 48 42 44 51 61 43.5 44 36 44p ∗∗ (0.004)

∗∗ =p < 0.01.

3. DISCUSSION

The engineering industry is associated by many with dirty, noisy, monotonous work. This isfar from always true, but the fact remains that this is how it is perceived. When confrontedwith filmed statements of people in the street and the survey of young people’s views of


56 ATEG ET AL.

the work (Hedlund et al., 2003), the managers of the five engineering companies gainedvaluable insight. The causes of the problems in recruiting well-educated personnel, whichhad already been noted, would not be found in the outside community but inside their ownwalls. Young people had clearly stated that improvements in the work environment wereneeded in the production industry (Hedlund et al., 2003). The insight that to a significantextent the problem lay in their own hands and that investments in the work environmentwere pivotal, had a major impact on the continued development.

The purpose of this article was to develop knowledge about how small engineeringcompanies can create attractive work. One objective was to make it possible to comment onhow the attractivity of the work has changed. Attractive work has been described as work thatstimulates positive attention through its positive characteristics and is perceived as attractivein the longer term. The views on work expressed by outsiders and the future workforce weretherefore the most important wake-up call for the five engineering companies, but existingemployees are still the most important group in the context of striving to bring about moreattractive work. They have the necessary insight, knowledge, and close-up experiences ofthe work, which are necessary to consider the longer perspective.

Preliminary surveys and discussions indicated that the work environment was one ofthe most important factors affecting work’s attractivity and the area that the companies—management and employees alike—prioritized first. This has influenced the focus of thechange processes and the methods and work approaches used. Since it has been recognizedthat work environment affects several aspects of work—such as job satisfaction, communi-cation, relaxedness, and happiness, but also absenteeism and performance—this approachseems reasonable in change processes for attractive work.

One difficulty that was identified at an early stage was the lack of previous researchon attractive work. To be able to evaluate the effects of the processes, it was possible toconduct work environment assessments before and after. But how does the experience ofthe attractiveness of work change among the employees in companies? The attractive workquestionnaire, developed in 2004, has been modified with a visual analogue scale to beable to deal with such questions. However, the time available did not allow for testing thetest–retest reliability. Still, efforts have been made to avoid vague or confusing questions.

3.1. Research Approach and Roles

The research approach used in the study can be characterized as interactive. The researchershave been participating in the change processes, and have had different functions and rolesboth at the company level and at the network level. First, the role of the researchers wasto initiate discussions on attractive work as a basis for change processes. Second, the rolewas to create and present a foundation of basic data on issues such as young people’s andemployees’ views on industrial work and on the state of the work environment in the compa-nies. Third, it was to introduce certain methods, strategies, and ways of working in order toinitiate discussions and change processes. Fourth, the researchers have provided support inthe application of the methods selected in interaction between companies and researchers.

Often the companies have raised questions, for example, about specific work environmenttopics, which they expected the researchers to answer or at least to provide guidance on.When possible, this has been done. Besides taking part in change processes, the researchershave also had the task of doing research. It can be said that while change processes taketime, research may require more. It is, however, of the utmost importance that the timeschedule is mainly adapted to conditions in the company, not to the researchers’ calendars.



The researchers have also acted as change agents and work environment consultants.This is a familiar difficulty in interactive research, and it places tremendous demands onresearchers to keep their roles separate. The researcher’s role has primarily been to study,evaluate, document, and reflect on the course of events. The consultant’s role has been toprovide support for the development.

The background for the study was the companies’ worries based on increasing difficultiesin attracting young people. This situation is not unique for Sweden. Also, the approach toaddress this problem is not to be viewed as applicable only in Sweden. Much of theunderstanding in how to conduct change processes, as well as much of the theoretical basisfor the understanding of the concept attractive work, has been influenced by internationalresearch.

To increase the ability to attract future workers, the companies, using the mirror method,saw the need to improve factors internal to the companies, as well as contributing toincreasing the attractiveness of choosing technical schooling at upper secondary school inthe municipality. The results of the latter efforts have been published elsewhere (Ateg, 2005).In short, the results were successful, but it was also apparent that those efforts were notsufficient, since youth’s perceptions of the attractiveness of industrial work are influencedby the employees and by own experiences of the industry during the course of their technicalschooling. However, following from the understanding of the concept of attractive work,increased attractivity due to improvement of internal factors cannot be measured throughpeople without close experiences. Only the employees are able to judge whether the effortshave resulted in increased attractivity.

3.2. Change Processes for Attractive Work

In line with the Moveit strategy, where methods are seen as playing an important role incontributing to increased motivation for work environment improvement, several methodshave been applied at different times in the companies. Several methods, such as PIMEX, theOR process, and photo editing have been used by several companies. This is partly an effectof the interaction in the network, where experiences in and opinions about methods have beenconveyed. In addition, the researchers have used what has been described as a “motivatingmirror,” where the aim has been to create a reflection and to create opportunities for themanagers and employees to reflect on the work environment and the work attractiveness intheir companies. These activities have been important.

By themselves, such arrangements do not, however, bring about work environment im-provements or more attractive work. What are needed are the intentions and the actions thatindividuals can be motivated to carry through. In this context, it is fruitful to distinguish be-tween different levels of activity. This is done in the development curves using the divisionof the processes into three levels.

During the initial diagnosis phase, a need for change was identified in interaction withresearchers and other companies, primarily in the network but also in meetings with otherbusiness leaders. The mirror method has been an important component during this phase.Interaction with researchers, other companies, and between employees and managers withinthe companies has played an important role in promoting critical reflection and creatingperceived freedom of action.

Subsequently the companies have, once again in interaction with researchers, used variousstrategies to change the prevailing situation. The change processes have begun to make animpression at the intention level and at the action level.


58 ATEG ET AL.

After a period at the action level, the four companies that reached this level returned to anintention or diagnosis level. One explanation behind why the change processes seem to losemomentum in this way is that the action level entails devoting time, energy, and resourcesto development, which results in a need to internalize the new routines and proceduresthat have been developed. The companies need time to allow the new rules to settle in theorganization, and the new procedures and work forms to stabilize. Conditions are therebycreated for ongoing development activities to take their point of departure in a “higher” level.Nonas (2005) uses the term interactive logic, where action brings consequences, which leadsto adjustments in actions and intentions. In this view, the change processes are, as the curvesalso indicate, an iterative enterprise. However, as is also apparent from the experiences inCompany B, a succession from diagnosis to intention and further on to action is not certain.

3.3. Changes in the Work Environment

One goal has been to make it possible to draw conclusions on changes in the experiencedattractivity of work. It is apparent that four of the five companies have reached an actionlevel in the change processes. However, that does not tell us enough about the results or theeffects of those actions.

The WEST method was used for two reasons: first, to create an objective point of departurefor discussions and processes of change, and, second, to be able to measure the effects ofthe development work. The WEST method produces figures that express the probability ofillness or injury occurring in a business operation, but because the method is not validated,these values have not been used. The method is based on a systematic review of conditionsat the workplace, which produces a documentation that is here used to show actual measuresthat have been taken during the project. However, the numerical values from the first WESTmeasurement were presented graphically to the companies, alongside values calculated as aresult of an easily achievable development goal. This use stimulated the intended discussionsabout what could be done. The lack of validation of the WEST method was therefore not aproblem in this context.

The assessments conducted with the WEST method show improvements in several workenvironment factors. Particularly, factors concerning the general physical environment,where staff areas, climate, housekeeping and sufficient space have been improved in allcompanies in the study (see Table 2). The four companies that reached the action levelall carried out renovation of staff areas. Three of the companies have been improvingtheir housekeeping aided by the Tuttava/OR process. Company D has been improving itshousekeeping without method support. Improvements can also be seen in chemical healthrisks, where fumes from welding have been an issue. Defective exhausts or imperfect useof exhausts was common. Improvement can be seen in all the five companies—includingcompany B, where the explanation is not successful measures, but rather cutbacks leadingto less welding. In the other four companies, information activities, use of the PIMEXmethod, and investments in exhaust equipment have been parts of the efforts in reducingthe exposure. Overall, the results of the work environment assessments by WEST showimproved work environment conditions.

3.4. Changes in the Attractivity of Work

Regarding the measurements of how personnel perceive changes in the attractivity of work,the results show a distinct increase in employees’ views of how the attractivity of work



has changed over 2 years for Company D (see Table 6). Company A shows a confirmedincrease over 5 years (see Table 7). Five years is, however, a very long time for employees tomake this overall assessment, which means that these results should be treated with caution.Nevertheless, the method indicates an ability to carry out measurements of experiences ofchanges in work’s attractivity. In a future application, measurements can be carried out atmore frequent intervals, partly to create a basis for further changes and partly to establishconditions for modifying actions and intentions in the change process.

Four of the companies reached an action level in the change processes (see Figures 1through 5). According to a line of argument presented, a higher level of activity is seen aslikely to produce a perceived increase in attractivity of work. Company A and Company Dreached the action level in three occasions and were the only ones where the employees re-ported experiences of increased overall attractivity. The results from Company A show thatthe employees have experienced increased in many aspects (see Tables 3 through 5). Com-pany D, on the other hand, did not show increases in as many aspects, which indicates thatdifferent aspects to a varying degree contribute to overall attractivity. Company C and Com-pany E, whose results did not report a confirmed increase in overall attractivity, reached theaction level in two occasions. Company B did not reach the action level at all. This can be seenas supporting the argument that high levels of activity produce more attractive work. But, thedifferent levels do not take into account what the actions consisted of and how well they wereconsistent with the employees’ views. Also, the hindered development at Company B showsthat there are other factors influencing the processes than those controlled by researchersand managers. There have been no attempts to isolate the processes from such factors; in-stead, they have been taken into consideration. In some cases, it has brought about increasedactivity and promoted the change processes; in other cases it has brought hindrance.

At several of the companies, confirmed increases were revealed in the employees’ experi-ences of aspects such as receiving information about the company, conscious development,having an influence, and being involved (see Table 3). These aspects have not in themselvesbeen objectives of the change processes. This indicates that employees’ participation in thechange processes can be considered as contributing to the development of more attractivework. Company B was the company that showed the lowest number of significant improve-ments combined with significant deteriorations. This can be considered natural, as it did notreach the action level. Management’s focus on survival combined with forced staff cutbacksdid not create the necessary foundation for development.

3.5. Conclusions

Improvements in the work environment have been an important starting point for changedirected at creating more attractive work. Past research has shown that improvements in thework environment also affect other aspects of work. Four of the five companies in the frame-work of the study have achieved an action level, that is, genuine changes have taken place inthe change process. Assessments of the work environment have indicated several tangibleimprovements, both in the physical work environment and in conditions for psychosocialaspects. The survey of employees’ experiences of changes in the attractivity of work alsoindicates a positive trend. Work environment projects, therefore, seem to be a viable startingpoint for small engineering companies in their endeavor to create more attractive work. Theimplemented changes have also clearly helped reduce risks in the workplace.

In the case in question, an interactive approach has been used with a high degree ofinvolvement. To create motivation, involvement, and conditions for critical reflection in


60 ATEG ET AL.

the change processes, methods and work approaches have been used to reflect conditionsin the company and to provide support and guidance during the process. The researcher’srole has been to document and evaluate, although this role is not necessary should othercompanies in the same industry or other industries wish to conduct similar developmentinitiatives. Consultants with the necessary insight into the importance of the interactiveapproach and with the necessary knowledge about using the methods could very well act asprocess managers for similar initiatives elsewhere.

In this study it has been shown that the questionnaire designed to measure changes inexperiences in the attractivity of work had very good internal consistency at large, butthat there were two domains, physical activity and practical work, that needed furtheradjustments. However, none of these domains was represented in the tables showing theconfirmed changes in the employees’ experiences.

The study has shown that it is possible to measure changes in employees’ experiencesin work attractivity. Consequently, the method can provide important feedback in a changeprocess aiming to increase a particular company’s or industry’s ability to attract labor. Theeffects are not always evident in the short term with regard to the industry’s reputationamong young people embarking on a working life, but the impact is rapid in terms ofexisting employees’ views of their work. Many positive effects can come from this. Oneinteresting observation is that the education program for engineering mechanics, whichwas threatened with closure at the beginning of the project due to a lack of interest amongstudents, soon received a surplus of applicants and had stabilized at a sound level by theend of the project. This result is, perhaps, the most decisive when it comes to the benefitof the broad-ranging development activities among companies where work environmentdevelopment is an important component.

4. APPENDIX

TABLE A.1. Contents in the Attractive Work Model (Ateg et al., 2004)

Attractive Work

Category 1 – Attractive Work Conditions Category 2 – Attractive Work Content

1. Location 1. Familiaritya) Surroundings a) Work Tasksb) Nearness I. What to doc) To and From Work II. How to do

I. Travelling Cost b) What AwaitsII. Travelling Time 2. Freedom of ActionIII. Means of Transport a) Organize and Manage Own Work

2. Working Hours b) Organize and Manage Work of Othersa) Known Working Hours 3. Physical Activityb) Influence 1. Beneficial Exertion

I. Amount 2. Move AboutII. Distribution 4. Mental WorkIII. Flexibility a) In Work TasksIV. Time Off b) Creative



TABLE A.1. Continued

Attractive Work

Category 1 – Attractive Work Conditions Category 2 – Attractive Work Content

3. Physical Work Environment c) Learninga) Noise Levels d) Developing the Activitiesb) Premises e) Problem Solvingc) Interior 5. Practical Workd) Air 3. Work With Handse) Cleanly 4. Skill

4. Adequate Equipment 5. Creativea) Do a Good Job 6. Working Speed

I. Quality a) IntensiveII. Productivity b) Calm Periods

b) Workload I. ReflectionI. Physical II. RecoveryII. Mental c) Breaks

c) Modern 7. Variation5. The Company a) Rotation

a) Doing Well I. For Allb) Size II. Different Work Tasksc) Career Opportunities b) Flexibilityd) Benefits I. Within Work Taskse) Secure Employment II. Between Work Tasks

6. Leadership c) Changing Work Tasksa) Confidence in Management Category 3 – Work Satisfaction

b) Confidence From Management 1. Sought Afterc) Information a) Competence in Demandd) Communication b) Feel Needede) Conscious Development c) Important Workf) Appropriate Requests 2. Stimulationg) Delegation a) Challenging

7. Loyalty b) Developinga) To Workmates c) Interestingb) To Workplace 3. Resultsc) To Organization d) Direct and visible

8. Social Contact e) Concretea) During Work f) Different

I. Workmates g) Sense of CoherenceII. Other People 4. Acknowledgement

b) During Breaks a) Inner9. Relations I. Do a Good Job

a) Support/Empathy b) Outerb) Cooperation I. From Workmatesc) Teamwork II. From Bossd) Company III. From Other People

I. At Work c ) AppreciationII. At Leisure Time I. Reward

e) Honesty II. Activities


62 ATEG ET AL.

TABLE A.1. Continued

Attractive Work

Category 1 – Attractive Work Conditions Category 3 – Work Satisfaction

f) Straightforwardness d) Individualizedg) Openness e) Performance-influencedh) Humor 5. Status

10. Salary a) Pridea) Sufficient b) Successb) Performance Influenced c) Professional Identityc) Level Increasesd) Regularly

The model represents a comprehensive view on all aspects that constitute attractive work.The model is made up of three categories. Each category is made up of several dimensions(numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.), which in turn are made up of separate qualities (designated a,b, c, d, etc.). Some qualities contain subdivisions (numbered I, II, III, IV, etc.).

REFERENCES

Antonsson, A.-B., Birgersdotter, L., & Bornberger-Dankvardt, S. (Eds.). (2002). Small enterprises inSweden. Health and safety and the significance of intermediaries in preventive health and safety.Arbete och halsa. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.

Ateg, M. (2005). Attraktiv industriutbildning pa gymnasiet. Ett deltagandeperspektiv pa lokalt utveck-lingsarbete (English summary). Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.

Ateg, M., Hedlund, A., and Ponten, B. (2004). Attraktivt arbete. Fran anstalldas uttalanden tillskapandet av en modell (English summary). Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.

Bengtsson, G., & Berglund, R. (1997). WEST. En metod att mata arbetsmiljon. IVF-skrift 97836.WEST [A method to measure the work environment]. Institutet for verkstadsteknisk forskning.

Birgersdotter, L., Schmidt, L., & Antonsson, A.-B. (2004). Systematiskt arbetsmiljoarbete ismaforetag- vad kan externa aktorer som regionala skyddsombud och foretagshalsovard gorafor att fa SAM att fungera? (English summary). Stockholm: IVL Svenska Miljoinstitutet AB.

Bjorklund, C. (2001). Work motivation: Studies of its determinants and outcomes. Stockholm: ElanderGotab.

Commissaris, D. A. C. M., Schoenmaker, N., Beune, E. A. T., & Eikhout, S. M. (2006). Applying prin-ciples of change management in ergonomic projects: A case study. Human Factors and ergonomicsin Manufacturing, 16(2), 195–223.

Cooper, L., & Baber, C. (2005). Focus groups. In N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, &H. Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (chap. 32). London:CRC Press.

Crichton, N. (2001). Visual analogue scale (VAS). Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 697–706.Dalarna University. (2004). Fragor om attraktivt arbete [Questions about attractive work]. Borlange,

Sweden: National Institute for Working Life and Dalarna University.Davis, B., Kiesel, C., McFarland, J., Collard, A., Coston, K., & Keeton, A. (2005). Evaluating

instruments for quality: Testing convergent validity of the consumer emergency care satisfactionscale. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 20(4), 364–368.

Dufort, M. V., & Infante-Rivard, C. (1999). Measuring housekeeping in manufacturing industries.Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 43(2), 91–97.

Eklof, M. (2004). Interventions for safe and healthy work. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.Ennals, R. (2002). Partnership for sustainable healthy workplaces. Annals of Occupational Hygiene,

46(4), 423–428.Gustavsen, B., Hofmaier, B., Ekman Philips, M., & Wikman, A. (1996). Concept-driven development

and the organization of the process of change. An evaluation of the Swedish Working Life Fund.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.



Gustavsen, B., Wikman, A., Ekman Philips, M., & Hofmaier, B. (1996). Concept-driven change.Concepts and Transformation, 1(2/3), 193–212.

Hedlund, A. (2006). The attractiveness of work is affected when production of log houses movesindoors. Silva Fennica, 40(3), 545–558.

Hedlund, A., Ateg, M., Sconfienza, C., Andersson, I.-M., & Rosen, G. (2003). En studie av ungdomarsoch anstalldas syn pa arbete i tva kommuner i Dalarna (English summary). Solna, Sweden:Arbetslivsinstitutet.

Kahl, C., & Cleland, J. A. (2005). Visual analogue scale, numeric pain rating scale and the McGill painquestionnaire: An overview of psychometric properties. Physical Therapy Reviews, 10, 123–128.

Kira, M. (2003). From good work to sustainable development. Human resources consumption andregeneration in the post-bureaucratic working life. Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology,Stockholm.

Laring, J., Ateg, M., Andersson, I.-M., Kahari, K., Lindhal, R., Neely, G., et al. (2005). Methodsfor motivation to an integrated, functioning and continuous work environment work. NordicErgonomics Society Conference, Oslo, Norway.

Limborg, H. J. (2001). The professional working environment consultant: A new actor in the healthand safety arena. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 11(2), 159–172.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. B. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. London:Sage.

Nonas, K. (2005). Vision versus reality in organizational change. Stockholm: National Institute forWorking Life West/Goteborgs University.

Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Rosen, G., Andersson, I.-M., & Ateg, M. (2005). Moveit. Improved motivation and engagement

for hazard control. IOHA 6th International Scientific Conference, Pilanesberg National Park,South Africa.

Rosen, G., Andersson, I.-M., Walsh, P. T., Clark, R.D.R., Saamanen, A., Heinonen, K., et al. (2005).A review of video exposure monitoring as an occupational hygiene tool. Annals of OccupationalHygiene, 49(3), 201–217.

Saari, J. (2000). The background of the studies described in this book. In H. Laitinen & J. Saari(Eds.), A good workday through participation and feedback: Improving the work environment andenhancing performance and well-being of the workers. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of OccupationalHealth.

Seppala, P., & Klemola, S. (2004). How do employees perceive their organization and job whencompanies adopt principles of lean production? Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing,14(2), 157–180.

Sirkin, R. M. (1995). Statistics for the social sciences. London: Sage.Swuste, P., Hale, A., & Pantry, S. (2003). Solbase: A databank of solutions for occupational hazards

and risks. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 47(7), 541–547.Walters, D. (2001). Health and safety in small enterprises: European strategies for managing improve-

ment. Brussels: P.I.E Peter Lang.


Documents

Change processes for attractive work in small manufacturing companies