Workplace Innovation and Wellbeing at Work

Chapter
Part of the Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being book series (AHSW)

Abstract

Workplace innovation promises to improve organisational performance, quality of working life and consequently wellbeing at work simultaneously. In this chapter the focus is on wellbeing at work, how this promise can be founded theoretically and how the connection of workplace innovation and wellbeing at work has been and can be integrated in policies in Europe. The relation between workplace innovation and wellbeing at work is well-founded, empirically as well as theoretically. It is argued that the ‘conditional approach’ (‘primary prevention’) is a more successful strategy to realise the workplace innovation promises than improving individual coping behaviour (‘secondary prevention’).

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1982). Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alasoini, T. (2016). Workplace development programmes as institutional entrepreneurs. Why they produce change and why they do not. Aalto University publication series, doctoral dissertations 12/2016.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Belgian Legislation. (1996). Act of 4, August 1996 on well-being of workers in the performance of their work.Google Scholar
  5. Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). Management of innovations. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, T., Griffiths, A., & Rial-Gonzalez, E. (2000). Research on work-related stress. Luxemburg: European Agency on Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
  9. Cressey, P., Totterdill, P., & Exton, R. (2013). Workplace social dialogue as a form of ‘productive reflection’. International Journal of Action Research, 9(2), 209–245.Google Scholar
  10. De Lange, A. H., Taris, T. W., Kompier, M. A. J., Houtman, I. L. D., & Bongers, P. M. (2003). The very best of the millennium: Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 282–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. De Sitter, L. U. (1981). Heading towards new factories and offices (in Dutch). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. De Sitter, L. U., den Hertog, J. F., & Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50(5), 497–534.Google Scholar
  13. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. DG EMPL. (2015). Employment and social developments in Europe 2014. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  15. Dhondt, S. (Ed.) (2012). European learning network for workplace innovation, Section 4 technical proposal, call for tender no 212/pp/ent/cip/12/c/n02c04. Hoofddorp: TNO.Google Scholar
  16. Dhondt, S., Pot, F. D., & Kraan, K. O. (2014). The importance of organizational level decision latitude for wellbeing and organizational commitment. Team Performance Management: An international journal, 20(7/8), 307–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dhondt, S., & Vaas, F. (2001). WEBA analysis manual. Hoofddorp: TNO Work and Employment.Google Scholar
  18. Eeckelaert, L., Dhondt, S., Oeij, P., Pot, F., Nicolescu, G. I., Webster, J., et al. (2012). Review of workplace innovation and its relation with occupational safety and health. Bilbao: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
  19. Emery, F., & Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at work: The report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  20. ETUC, UNICE, UEAPME, & CEEP (2004). Framework agreement on work-related stress, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. EU OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work). (2013a). Priorities for occupational safety and health research in Europe: 2013–2020. Bilbao: EU OSHA.Google Scholar
  22. EU OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work). (2013b). Well-being at work—creating a positive work environment. Bilbao: EU OSHA.Google Scholar
  23. Eurofound. (2015a). Third European Company Survey. Workplace practices: Patterns, performance and well-being. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  24. French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 316–333). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Frese, M. (1989). Theoretical models of control and health. In S. L. Sauter, J. J. Hurrell, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health (pp. 107–128). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Gallie, D. (2013). Direct participation and the quality of work. Human Relations, 66(4), 453–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and development: Theory of communication, action research and the restructuring of working life. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  28. Gustavsen, B. (2016). Democratic dialogue. In B. J. Mohr & P. Van Amelsvoort (Eds.), Co-creating humane and innovative organizations. Evolutions in the practice of socio-technical system design (pp. 186–200). Global STS-D Network Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hacker, W. (1978). Allgemeine Arbeits- und Ingenieurpsychologie. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  30. Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(2), 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Häusser, J. A., Mojzisch, A., Niesel, M., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2010). Ten years on: A review of recent research on the Job Demand-Control (-Support) model and psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 24(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hurst, A. (2014). The purpose economy. How your desire for impact, personal growth and community is changing the world. eBook by Elevate.Google Scholar
  33. ILO (International Labour Organization). (2009). Workplace well-being. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  34. ILO. (2012). Decent work indicators: Concepts and definitions: ILO manual. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, P. R., Wall, T. D., Martin, R., & Davids, K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 753–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jilcha, K., Besha, B., & Kitaw, D. (2016). Workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 8(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction—Job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karasek, R. A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work; Stress, productivity and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Koukoulaki, T. (2014). The impact of lean production on musculoskeletal and psychosocial risks: An examination of sociotechnical trends over 20 years. Applied Ergonomics, 45(2), 198–212.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Landsbergis, P. (2005). A possible design example for JCQ 2.0 job decision latitude scales (discussion note).Google Scholar
  42. Lyness, K. S., Gornick, J. C., Stone, P., & Grotto, A. R. (2012). It’s all about control: Worker control over schedule and hours in cross-national context. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 1023–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikkelsen, A., Saksvik, P. Ø., & Landsbergis, P. (2000). The impact of a participatory organizational intervention on job stress in community health care institutions. Work & Stress, 14(2), 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ministry of Labour. (2012). National working life development strategy to 2020. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Labour.Google Scholar
  45. O’Toole, J. (2008). Free to choose—How managers can create globally competitive and healthy workplaces (an American perspective). In V. Weber (Ed.), Achieving business excellence—Health, well-being and performance (pp. 24–39). Essen Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung/BKK.Google Scholar
  46. Oeij, P., Dhondt, S., Kraan, K., Vergeer, R., Pot, F. (2012). Workplace innovation and its relations with organisational performance and employee commitment. LLINE Lifelong Learning in Europe, Issue 4/2012, Theme ‘Workplace Learning and Innovation’ (article 10) http://www.elmmagazine.eu/articles/workplace-innovation-and-its-relations-with-organisational-performance-and-employee-commitment/
  47. Pot, F., Dhondt, S., de Korte, E., Oeij, P., & Vaas, F. (2012). Workplace innovation in the Netherlands. In I. Houtman (Ed.), Work life in the Netherlands (pp. 173–190). Hoofddorp: TNO.Google Scholar
  48. Pot, F. D., Peeters, M. H. H., Vaas, F., & Dhondt, S. (1994). Assessment of stress risks and learning opportunities in the work organisation. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ramstad, E. (2009). Promoting performance and the quality of working life simultaneously. Internal Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(5), 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramstad, E. (2014). Can high-involvement innovation practices improve productivity and the quality of working-life simultaneously? Management and employee views on comparison. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4(4), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Saksvik, P. Ø., Hammer, T. H., & Nytrø, K. (2013). Social relations at the collective level: The meaning and measurement of collective control in research on the psychosocial work environment. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 3(3), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schulte, P. A., Guerin, R. J., Schill, A. L., Bhattacharya, A., Cunningham, T. R., Pandalai, S. P., et al. (2015). Considerations for incorporating “Well-Being” in public policy for workers and workplaces. American Journal of Public Health, 105(8), e31–e44. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302616.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Schulte, P., & Vainio, H. (2010). Well-being at work: Overview and perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(5), 422–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stansfeld, S. A., Shipley, M. J., Head, J., Fuhrer, R., & Kivimäki, M. (2013). Work characteristics and personal social support as determinants of subjective well-being. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e81115, 1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081115
  55. Taris, T. W., Schreurs, P. J. G., Eikmans, K. J. L., & Van Riet, P. (2008). Werkkenmerken, welzijn en organisatieprestatie: een toets van de happy-productive worker hypothese op organisatieniveau. (Work characteristics, well-being and organisational performance: A test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis on organisation level). Gedrag & Organisatie, 21(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  56. Totterdill, P., Dhondt, S., & Milsome, S. (2002). Partners at work? A report to Europe’s policymakers and social partners. Nottingham: The Work Institute.Google Scholar
  57. Volpert, W., Kötter, W., Gohde, H.-E., & Weber, W. G. (1989). Psychological evaluation and design of work tasks: Two examples. Ergonomics, 32(7), 881–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wynne, R., De Broeck, V., Vandenbroek, K., Leka, S., Jain, A., Houtman, I., & McDaid, D. (2014). Promoting mental health in the workplace. Guidance to implementing a comprehensive approach. European Commission.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations