Conceptual frameworks for the workplace change adoption process: elements integration from decision making and learning cycle process.

Sound workplace ergonomics and safety-related interventions may be resisted by employees, and this may be detrimental to multiple stakeholders. Understanding fundamental aspects of decision-making, behavioural change, and learning cycles may provide insights into pathways influencing employees' acceptance of interventions. This manuscript reviews published literature on thinking processes and other topics relevant to decision making and incorporates the findings into two new conceptual frameworks of the workplace change adoption process. Such frameworks are useful for thinking about adoption in different ways and testing changes to traditional intervention implementation processes. Moving forward, it is recommended that future research focuses on systematic exploration of implementation process activities that integrate principles from the research literature on sense-making, decision-making, and learning processes. Such exploration may provide the groundwork for development of specific implementation strategies that are theoretically grounded and provide a revised understanding of how successful intervention adoption processes work. Practitioner summary: Adoption and acceptance of workplace changes may be facilitated through sound implementation strategies. This manuscript explores several principles of sense-making and decision-making processes that can potentially be used by industrial practitioners to inform the design and development of implementation strategies for interventions that improve workplace ergonomics and safety. ABBREVIATIONS:  Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA); Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Feeling Weary? Feeling Insecure? Are All Workplace Changes Bad News?

Prior research indicates that workplace changes can have both positive and negative consequences for employees. To explore the mechanisms that trigger these different outcomes, we propose and test a mediation model, which builds on the premises of the challenge-hindrance model of work stress. Specifically, we suggest that whereas workplace changes can engender positive outcomes (e.g., learning outcomes) through an increase in learning demands, they can also enhance negative outcomes (e.g., emotional exhaustion) through increased perceptions of qualitative job insecurity. While we made these specific assumptions, we also analyzed the reversed causation relationships. Two-wave data obtained from 1366 Dutch employees were used to test the study hypotheses. The results showed that the reciprocal causation model had the best fit for the data. However, whereas emotional exhaustion was only mediated by qualitative job insecurity, no mediation was found by learning demands. In addition to the hypothesized effects, several reversed causation effects emerged from the analyses, indicating that the relationships between workplace changes and employee learning and strain are not unidirectional. This underscores the need for a broader view on the causes and effects of workplace changes, as the traditional causation relationships (i.e., perceptions of workplace changes impacting employee learning and strain experiences) are insufficient to explain the complex dynamics between the studied phenomena.