Awareness, Motivation and Leadership in Production Systems: A Socio-Technical Perspective

The notion of ‘awareness’ has been central to CSCW research since the 1980s (Fuchs 1998; Mantau and Barreto Vavassori Benitti 2022; Schmidt and Randall 2016; Tenenberg et al. 2016). Around that time, it was made evident that group members need a variety of information for working cooperatively, which is readily available in a face-to-face situation but otherwise only visible with additional technical support (Gross et al. 2005; Kimmerle and Cress 2008). Awareness in this context is generally understood as ‘an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity’ (Dourish and Bellotti 1992, p.107), and differs from other forms of interaction in that it should be achieved effortlessly (Schmidt and Randall 2016). Awareness should answer who is there, what happened and how it happened (Dix 1997). However, although CSCW systems have been designed over the years to promote coordination, communication, and awareness in organisations to enhance cooperation among employees (Haines 2021; Chen et al. 2019; Farshchian 2019; Luther and Bruckman 2008), they still show deficiencies in supporting mutual awareness (Niemantsverdriet et al. 2019).

One focus of CSCW research is to support social cognition (Bardram and Hansen 2010). Our research is concerned with issues of collaboration and cooperation, such as information about other people’s presence, interests, attention, and emotional state (Carroll et al. 2003; Gross et al. 2005; Gutwin et al. 1996). Their high importance for collaboration and cooperation in CSCW refers to the fact that work is fundamentally a social activity, but this aspect is often not sufficiently considered in non-co-located systems compared to face-to-face situations (Gross 2013; Schmidt 2011). Furthermore, there are a variety of terms used in the literature in relation to ‘awareness’ (Gross 2013; Mantau and Barreto Vavassori Benitti 2022; Schmidt and Randall 2016), but each has a slightly different focus.

For example, group awareness refers to the ‘up-to-the-moment understanding of others’ activities in a shared space’ (Hill and Gutwin 2004); activity awareness has more to do with group goal achievement information (Kimmerle and Cress 2008); and workspace awareness concerns ‘information about other users of the shared workspace and the artifacts that are part of that space’ (Gross et al. 2005), although it can also be seen as a special form of group awareness (Gutwin and Greenberg 2002). In the following, we would like to focus on workspace awareness, as it is a central component of cooperation in workspaces (Gutwin et al. 1996).

Besides the social dimension, workspace awareness deliberately includes spatial, temporal and activity dimensions (Bardram and Hansen 2010). Workspace awareness includes information about other users and the artefacts of the shared workspace to help people coordinate and support each other more easily, identifying opportunities for closer cooperation and less verbal interaction (Gross et al. 2005; Gutwin and Greenberg 2002). Furthermore, in combination with transparency, awareness is an important prerequisite for the creation of knowledge (Hyysalo et al. 2017). (Erickson and Kellogg 2003) also point out that social translucence must be considered when disclosing social information and a balance needs to be struck between visibility on the one hand and privacy on the other. In this context, there are different ways in which transparency can support community building and knowledge and expertise sharing and it needs to be adapted to the context, as otherwise negative consequences can occur (Alsaedi et al. 2022; Dabbish et al. 2012; McDonald et al. 2012).

It is important to note that awareness does not only refer to hard facts but should rather be understood as a social construct that also includes social impacts and emotional factors (Gross 2013; Hancock et al. 2009; Morrison-Smith and Ruiz 2020). It provides the framework for cooperation in groups and is an important factor in the organisation and development of social processes (Schmidt and Bannon 1992; Sudweeks and Allbritton 1996). To this end, cooperative work creates dependencies among group members, such as using the same resources to complete their tasks (Malone and Crowston 1990; Strauss 1985). However, this does not characterise cooperative work. Rather, it requires employees to be aware of different operations and their requirements (Gutwin and Greenberg 2002; Kiani et al. 2013).

In addition, it must be taken into account that the use of CSCW systems can also affect technical, environmental and organisational factors of group work, which is why interactions between group members at different hierarchical levels must also be considered (Schmidt 1994). Regarding this, one particular issue that drew attention of past CSCW research is the role of leaders in information flows. Through their communication capabilities, they have a significant influence on the formation of awareness and thus on the quantitative and qualitative performance of a group (Ehrlich and Cataldo 2014). Moreover, in a study on digital group work, Haines (2021) found that, contrary to previous studies, a regular flow and exchange of information promoted by leaders can enhance the awareness of a group and increase its motivation and performance in various work contexts. Thus, increased awareness has a positive effect on decision-making in groups and motivates group members to participate in these processes (Ørebæk et al. 2020). Therefore, companies need to develop appropriate strategies that take into account the specific factors influencing the exchange of information in hierarchies (Pratt and Cakula 2020). Particularly considering that effective communication is a key factor in motivation and is impeded by technology-based channels, it is important to generate support mechanisms for leaders to exchange knowledge and expertise at different and between hierarchical level (Cakula and Pratt 2021). The challenge of developing technological solutions to support managers in their communication is thus to minimise existing prejudices (Houtti et al. 2023).

To this end, the social aspects must be adapted to the needs of the participating individuals (Leinonen et al. 2005) and to the domain of the workplace (Bibri 2019). On the one hand, they should not be too dominant and distracting. On the other hand, they should not be too inconspicuous to be overlooked (Bødker and Christiansen 2006). Thus, Bibri (2019) points out that a one-solution-fits-all approach cannot be applied here.

Closely linked to the previously mentioned possibilities of leaders to contribute to the improvement of group performance through information and communication (Ehrlich and Cataldo 2014) is their potential influence on group members’ perceived psychological safety (Edmondson et al. 2001; Roussin 2008; Martínez-Córcoles et al. 2011). By influencing the behaviour of other individuals or groups (Grint 2005), leaders are able to create trust, which increases the psychological safety and enhances overall group performance. In this sense, leadership can also be described as a social process in which one person can gain the support of another to accomplish a common task (Chin 2015). In a positive group safety climate, employees’ behaviour in complying with safety rules improves as supervisors’ leadership practices improve (Kapp 2012). Similarly, May et al. (2004) show that worker rewards and supportive supervisory relationships are positively associated with psychological safety.

Likewise, employees’ motivation is linked to their perceived psychological safety, which arises from their assessment of the consequences of interpersonal risks (Edmondson et al. 2001; Edmondson and Lei 2014). Psychological safety, in turn, promotes communicative bonds, which increases the motivation to share knowledge and expertise, which are important competitive resources in industrial settings (Siemsen et al. 2009; Choo et al. 2007). In order to control these processes of internal communication and information, leaders play a relevant role (Ehrlich and Cataldo 2014). In addition, psychological safety is also an important factor for new routines that emerge when new technologies are introduced (Edmondson et al. 2001).

In a learning environment, Javed and Kohda (2021) show that psychological safety relates both to individuals and to the relationships between individuals in a group. They show that greater commitment to one’s own performance improves the ability to work with others. At the level of group psychological safety, they emphasise that compassionate arrangements are a prerequisite for learning from mistakes and events. These in turn help to support innovative change and enable higher performance.

However, in the context of complex technical tasks, Cole et al. (2022) find that psychological safety is negatively associated with the total number of contributions generated by participating group members. They draw on a study of engineering students. However, they suggest that the quality of contributions increases with psychological safety and attribute this to participants being more willing to take risks. At the same time, the way in which leaders manage to build trust and motivate employees to participate in decision-making processes also matters (Roussin 2008). In this respect, they complement the finding of Constantinides et al. (2020), who report an improvement in group performance as psychological safety increases in a laboratory study of meetings without a concrete technical context.

Constantinides and Quercia (2022) also highlight psychological safety as an essential factor in meetings. They discuss measures to improve psychological safety in digital systems, such as better expression of emotions, an appropriate atmosphere of attentiveness and inclusiveness. At the same time, they point to the surveillance problems that can arise, which it is up to leaders to manage appropriately. Thus, further analyses demonstrate that the perception of electronic performance monitoring leads to increased psychological stress and lower job satisfaction of employees and can have a negative impact on their psychological safety (Backhaus 2019; Ravid et al. 2023). In addition, it remains to be mentioned that surveillance in the workplace creates potential for mistrust (Weckert 2000). Therefore, there is a particular need for regulated data collection that benefits participants rather than manipulating or harming them, while surveillance should be accompanied by improved organisational accountability (Constantinides and Quercia 2022). Although we are aware of the debates concerning surveillance, it is not our intention here to delve into it, as it is not our intent to focus on the active role of organisations in terms of controlling their workforce. Rather, we would like to focus on the cooperation between workers in supporting each other for the accomplishment of shared intentions.

Away from digitalised production, the importance of leadership and a trusting environment is already partially discussed in the literature (Davidavičienė et al. 2020). However, to the best of our knowledge, there is still no sufficient discussion about the influence of awareness in this equation, especially in the production environment.

Contrary to the frequent assumption that group work inherently leads to enhanced productivity, social impacts can lead people to perform less collectively than the sum of their individual performances. Put differently, social forces and norms in groups lead to certain patterns of behaviour that affect group performance (Ingham et al. 1974; Wajcman and Rose 2011). These phenomena of social impacts also occur frequently in cooperative settings of production work (De Carvalho et al. 2022) and have already been extensively discussed in different bodies of literature under the rubric of group effects (Ingham et al. 1974; Rose 2011; Suleiman and Watson 2008; Wajcman and Rose 2011).

Neale et al. (2004) and De Carvalho et al. (2022) suggest that CSCW systems can also lead to negative outcomes in socio-technical environments. Therefore, technologies should not only be seen as a positive contribution to cooperative work. In addition, previous studies have already shown that technology-mediated cooperation affects the development of social forces and norms in work groups (De Carvalho et al. 2022; Haines 2021; O’Leary et al. 2017). Therefore, the relationship of social impacts and awareness as mentioned before in digitalisation production contexts remains to be explored.

One of the social impacts on coordination in cooperative settings is groupthink, which can be defined as the tendency of group members to adapt their own opinions or ideas to the perceived group opinion due to their need for harmony (Park 1990). Another phenomenon is the hidden profile effect, which can be described as the unequal sharing of information between group members (Lu et al. 2012; Stasser and Titus 2003). This asymmetric distribution of information can be leveraged by group members to pursue their hidden goal and create situations of inverted hierarchies (Mörike 2022. In addition, Wright and Goodwin (1999) demonstrated in a study on scenario planning and decision analysis that the groupthink and hidden profile effect lead to wrong decisions and cause inertia processes in groups. These can be compensated by creating meta-knowledge about the group (Osinski and Rummel 2019) or a common basis of awareness and using appropriate communication technologies, even across geographical distances, as argued by Haines and Vehring (2012). In their observation of students, Neale et al. (2004) posit that partners working remotely require significantly more time for information sharing and coordination due to a lack of knowledge about one another.

On the other hand, social impacts can also influence or be caused by the motivation of group members (Huang and Fu 2013). For example, social loafing leads to performance losses in groups (Dabbish and Kraut 2008; Ingham et al. 1974), whereas social compensation and social competition influence group performance positively (McKinlay et al. 1999; Tauer and Harackiewicz 2004). In this regard, Kamel and Davison (1998) demonstrated that, in particular, anonymously provided information and a lack of visibility of individual performance generate motivational losses that can lead to performance losses in groups. Regarding this, Karau and Williams (1993); Latané et al. (1979), and O’Leary et al. (2017) confirmed in various studies that social loafing occurs when there is a lack of individual comparability and thus group members are less motivated to perform at their full potential. But there are also individual and situational factors, such as proximity to the best position or the small number of competitors, which can increase motivation through competition (Garcia et al. 2013). However, awareness improvements by communicating the availability of team members (Haines and Vehring 2012), by resolving conflicts (Atzenbeck and Hicks 2008), or increasing loyalty (Haines 2021) can also counteract motivation losses. Furthermore, motivation is needed to want to use the additional awareness information (Dabbish and Kraut 2004, 2008).

Hammedi et al. (2021) and Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004), for instance, showed that transparency of individual performance of group members can be an incentive to increase their motivation and the overall group performance. In this context, McKinlay et al. (1999) demonstrated in a study of decision-making tasks in computer-mediated communication that the phenomenon of social compensation compensates for imbalances in individual performance due to the efforts of individual group members. Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004) also observed a competitive behaviour of group members who increase their contribution to the overall performance of their group in a situation of social competition among themselves. Independently of this, however, the design of the feedback that group members experience in digital systems has a significant influence on the form of the motivational effects (Suleiman and Watson 2008).

Similarly, the presence of others during task performance can affect the arousal state and performance of group members (Zanbaka et al. 2007). Concerning this, in different studies with a virtual presence of others, social facilitation leading to improvement as well as social inhibition leading to a reduction of individual performance could be observed (Farzan et al. 2011; Hoyt et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2019; Zanbaka et al. 2007). For example, in a study using simple online applications, Farzan et al. (2011) demonstrated a positive effect of visualizing individual group members or the entire group on the engagement of individual group members, while Zanbaka et al. (2007) showed a strong effect of social inhibition in the context of another person’s virtual presence.

However, it remains unclear which factors exactly contribute to increase the feeling of reliability of awareness information and to increasing trust (Haines 2021). The specific context of production has also remained largely unexamined in the study of social impacts (De Carvalho et al. 2022) and is not sufficiently considered by the numerous laboratory experiments – see, e.g., the work by Cooper and Haines (2008); Dabbish and Kraut (2008); Haines (2021), and Neale et al. (2004).

Since its inception as a field, CSCW has been concerned with supporting increasingly complex work processes through computer technologies, with a special focus on coordination of cooperative work (Schmidt 2011). With the increasing diversity of activities and their interdependencies, the complexity of the cooperative work and the necessary articulation increase. In order to handle complex work, computer-aided coordination mechanisms were conceptualised to organise the activities of a group working together for a specific purpose (Cabitza and Simone 2013; Greif 1988; Schmidt and Simonee 1996). Bossen (2002) and Zhang and Sarcevic (2018) detail some of these aspects, noting that not only material artefacts but also immaterial mechanisms, such as organisational structures or division of labour, are required for the coordination of work. Over the years, technology has steadily evolved, but the complexity of working relationships has also increased, so that the need for adapted computer-based coordination technologies is ongoing (Schmidt 2011). However, the need for new coordination mechanisms is also becoming apparent in the context of industrial companies, as new technologies have been increasingly impacting production, since the interest in a Fourth Industrial Revolution, so called Industry 4.0, emerged. In addition to the actual production, these changes also affect the cooperation of human workers (De Carvalho et al. 2022).

Regardless of the production context, Schmidt and Bannon (1992) point out that in complex situations the simple provision of coordination mechanisms is not enough. They suggest a need for CIS, where group members can access the same set of information, share objects, and have a common understanding of these objects. Such a CIS can have very different mechanisms adapted to particular situations, e.g., a co-located group needs different support than one that is distributed in time and space (Bannon and Bødker 1997). This is supported by the study carried out by Lewkowicz and Liron (2019), which deals with the implementation of a digital artefact in different units in an industrial context, which aims at improving the overall coordination. They found out that a common understanding of differently located teams could not be reached by standardisation that neglects current processes. It is important to integrate business practices into new coordination mechanisms and aim towards an alignment of needs of the different teams. The goal is to reach a shared definition of what, how and when to communicate.

Depending on the information provided, decision-making in groups is supported and can lead to quicker and better outcomes (Ørebæk et al. 2020). In his CIS framework, Bossen (2002) elaborates seven characteristic parameters that also reflect the problems described in demanding production areas: 1) ‘the degree of distribution’, referring to the physical proximity of persons, whereby in our work, in addition to local proximity, it is also considered whether oral communication is possible; 2) ‘the multiplicity of webs of significance’, describing the degree of heterogeneity of the group members with regard to common contexts of meaning; 3) ‘the level of required articulation work’, concerning the coordination effort for the success of the cooperative work; 4) the ‘multiplicity and intensity of meanings of communication’, addressing the quality and diversity of the communication possibilities; 5) ‘the web of artefacts’, alluding to the abundance of material coordination mechanisms used - for example unofficial communication forums or unofficial spreadsheets can facilitate cooperation (Møller et al. 2020; Handel and Poltrock 2011); 6) ‘immaterial mechanisms of interaction’, regarding immaterial coordination mechanisms, such as habits, which can reduce the need for articulation and coordination between group members; and finally 7) ‘the need for precision and promptness of interpretation’, to do with the importance of the need for precise or rapid provision of information.

Despite the advances made through coordination mechanisms and CIS, Boden et al. (2014) noticed that, alone, these concepts where not enough to address the need of formal and informal coordination for successful cooperation. They hence proposed the concept of AS to reconcile these two types of coordination, combining coordination mechanisms and CIS to include meta-coordination elements to help understand the different coordination steps, supports decision-making processes, and promotes ad-hoc coordination. Elaborating on their work, De Carvalho et al. (2022) introduced a discussion on how AS can offer the possibility to increase the awareness of group members, taking into consideration that AS does not aim at giving as much information as possible to the workers, but to specify it contextually and to spread awareness about which persons are able to give relevant information (Boden et al. 2014). We start from the discussion initiated by De Carvalho et al. (2022) to demonstrate how AS is a relevant notion for industrial contexts undergoing digitalisation and how they can be extended to better respond to the needs stemming from it.

Our findings suggest that as the digitalisation of production processes progresses, awareness is affected and influences the behaviour of employees. In the production we observed, this impacted cooperation in different ways. For various reasons, very different levels of motivation have emerged at the individual level. These observations can be understood in terms of social compensation, social loafing, social facilitation, and social competition (Figure 1).

Bild vergrößern

In the following, P14 describes how his performance and that of his colleagues from other shifts is made public in the group using digital media. Digital performance recording increases the awareness of the employees in production, and they can compare themselves with each other across shifts without being present at the same time:

The employee does not want to be worse at the machine than his preceding shift [...]. That’s why there’s competition somewhere. That’s why the employee himself also pays attention. If I don’t work properly myself now, tomorrow one can ask why what happened. (Quote 1, P14)

Quote 1 suggests that through the visible presentation of performance, cooperating actors in the shop floor gain awareness that shows to all involved in the cooperation the performance goals to be achieved by the shifts without the need for direct interaction. This enables them to compare individual performances, thus creating social competition (Figure 1), which in turn may motivate the employees. Taking account of the findings from Garcia et al. (2013), it can be argued that the small number of employees involved here (only the previous shift) is a positive factor. It could thus be said that P14 strives to raise awareness in order to anticipate emerging impairments as early as possible. Another employee emphasises the enjoyment of social competition and confirms the positive motivational effect of group members being aware of their performance: ‘We do a very monotonous job, but because of this rotation and this feeling of competition, [it] is also kind of fun.’ (Quote 2, P17). Overall, the awareness of the work of colleagues leads to considerable enjoyment and has the effect of reinforcing one’s own motivation and feeling of relief (Figure 1).

An additional factor that increases motivation is made clear by P18. He feels motivated when his department colleagues are aware of and appreciate his performance:

As a result, people always know what I have achieved, and that is also appreciated accordingly. For me personally, recognition for my performance is very, very important. [...] to the outside world, it has always been very, very important to me what people think of me, and I don’t want to be seen as the laziest employee in the department. (Quote 3, P18)

In this situation, we argue that performance visibility contributes towards awareness of the status of affairs and have impact upon other workers’ performance. By disclosing the individual performance, co-workers may feel motivated to catch up with the pace or slow down their own performance. What is particularly important here is that the conscious processing of the employee’s own position in the social group, i.e., the social dimension, is stimulated by the recognition of others. The knowledge of his colleagues’ awareness and the resulting competitive situation motivates P18 so that he is socially facilitated (Figure 1). According to Janneck (2009), this avoids social loafing, because achievements are directly attributable to individuals, and they can thus be held personally responsible. The potential for the situations outlined in quotes 1-3 to reinforce one another, or even create a cyclical effect, which will be explored in greater depth in Section 6.1.

In a different situation, we have P2 and his colleague working in a company without a digital individual performance measurement. P2 gives the following description of their cooperation:

Sometimes a colleague is in a completely different world at work. And then I say: “Listen, today you don’t feel like it, or what? Today you did shit.” Or: “Today you didn’t work well. I have to work harder.” That happens sometimes, but actually, let’s say 80 per cent, we get along well. (Quote 4, P2)

P2’s colleague has no digital support to get individual feedback on his performance. In this context of limited attention, P2 intervenes with a verbal feedback, thereby redirecting the focus of the colleague’s attention in accordance with the feedback intervention theory outlined by Kluger and DeNisi (1998). Taking account of McKinlay et al. (1999), it can be argued that Quote 4 describes a situation of social compensation in which P2’s direct address of having to compensate for his colleague’s performance loss promotes his colleague’s awareness. However, due to the deliberate social compensation to achieve the required group outcome, P2 accepts to cover up possible social loafing of his colleague. This is noticeable in that P2’s direct address regularly leads to (short-term) motivation, but the drop in performance of his colleague is only temporarily reduced, which is why P2 also makes clear that this intervention is not a final solution of the problem.

In contrast, colleagues at P1’s workplace are acutely aware of the inherent dangers associated with their work in the melting shop. This awareness gives rise to a heightened sense of responsibility towards less experienced colleagues, as evidenced by the following statement:

Yes, in our melting shop everyone has to be there for each other [...] In our department it’s really important that we trust each other and there are still jobs where we say: “Oh, I don’t dare do that yet, it’s really too tricky or too dangerous for me. I’m not familiar with it”. And then experienced employees step in and support you. So, everything goes hand in hand. (Quote 5, P1)

It is not feasible for P1 and his colleagues to allocate limited attention in dangerous situations. In their case, awareness of the dangerous situation prompts a targeted focusing of attention in an environment that is intensely characterised by trust. Another employee, P17, points out that awareness helps colleagues to be situationally supportive, so that awareness can lead to social compensation (Figure 1):

If you are pressed for time and the others notice how important it is that the [product] just gets through, then they really always help you. [...] In any case, the motivation also comes from the group. There are also people who don’t have such high standards for themselves, and yet they are motivated by this internal competition. [...] That is a kind of group goal that we have. And yes, that is also motivating. (Quote 6, P17)

Similarly, P2 - in collaboration with his department - strives to minimise the financial implications of production downtime amongst his colleagues:

If the other department is really stepping on the gas, [we] have to fight to keep up. If they demand material, we always have to deliver. If we don’t keep up, they come to a standstill, and we come under pressure. (Quote 7, P2)

Here, awareness of time pressure leads to colleagues recognising the need for support and providing it. In contrast to the quotes 1-3, quote 6 and 7 do not illustrate an individual view, but focuses on the group or the company. It is from this cohesion that the interviewee draws motivation for the supporting work. The prerequisite for this is that there is an awareness within the group, which makes it possible to assess the current work performance of colleagues and the resulting consequences for one’s own work. Schmidt (2002) highlights the necessity for actors to comprehend the significance of their actions and convey this effectively to ensure awareness. This may prove challenging in the context of complex production environments. Successful awareness can, however, lead to the motivational effect of social compensation, so that colleagues help each other out in critical situations. The result thus confirms both the experiment by Tauer and Harackiewicz (2004), which shows a stronger effect on a group’s performance in an intergroup competition than in pure cooperation and pure competition situations, as well as that of Morschheuser et al. (2017). They demonstrate the positive impact of gamification on the propensity to share knowledge.

As Schmidt (2011) noted, there are many open problems regarding awareness. In this chapter we suggest that awareness mechanisms open up working conditions in which employees no longer have precise knowledge of other people’s awareness of them. This creates the risk of hidden profiles or inhibitions to do things that are subject to the awareness of others. However, this concern is counterbalanced by the advantage that employees can specifically provide awareness for their argumentative protection. In our findings there is also a fear of losing autonomy and fun, but also of gaining freedom through transparency and one’s own decision-making scope (Figure 2). This creates the task for management to support a sufficient, but not an excessive, level of awareness or to create transparency in order to 1) better explain new structures and 2) reduce fears of wrong reactions. In what follows, we will introduce findings illustrating how new working conditions are constantly emerging because of ongoing digitalisation.

Bild vergrößern

Automated and complex processes are often equipped with sensory elements that should support employees in their awareness and give them a sense of safety. Widely used, for example, are also systems for time recording or for measuring numbers of movements. How this support is designed, however, needs to be clarified in terms of application and acceptance.

This is illustrated by P15, whose colleagues perceive the digital information provided as an overload. As a result, information is filtered, which reduces their awareness:

They try to avoid the overkill by concentrating on their filter. [\( \cdots \)] There is a constant sense of unease when we make decisions based on certain priorities that other production employees cannot see [because of the filters]. (Quote 8, P15)

P15 shows that, on the one hand, employees voluntarily forego information to avoid increased complexity. Conversely, they may lose awareness and, through conscious filtering, run the risk of creating a hidden profile (Figure 2). The situation in Quote 8 does not necessarily lead directly to significant errors, as is the case at the decision-maker level.

In modern production systems, employees are constantly deciding about operations at the micro level, which can also be affected by errors that have a negative impact on employee morale. In a corresponding group context, Javed and Kohda (2021) also present the introduction of standards as an essential accompanying instrument to ensure performance and psychological safety. However, this restriction of information by superiors also leads to feeling unsafe in practice. P8 illustrates that workers feel unsafe when information is withheld from them, and therefore managers cannot build up sufficient workspace awareness about their workplace and the employees involved:

It’s definitely stressful for people because they don’t trust the system. They feel bypassed, rather controlled. They are afraid to give any information to these systems. They are insecure. [...] So, if they really give information, correct the quantities, or enter error messages, that is very important for us. This way we can finally find out what is happening in the plants. Otherwise, they were black boxes. (Quote 9, P8)

P8 suggests that the production workers in his company feel ignored or receive limited managerial workspace awareness, which leads to a lack of trust in digital systems. Thus, we can also confirm similar results of Constantinides and Quercia (2022) for teams in digitalised production. Furthermore, there is the feeling of being controlled, which leads to social inhibition (Figure 2) in complex situations (Hoyt et al. 2003; Zanbaka et al. 2007). The result, our findings suggest, is emotional strain, uncertainty and ultimately a fear of sharing information. P8’s concern is that the employees will become a black box, i.e., that they will adopt a hidden profile in relation to him (Figure 2). The corresponding interrelationships are discussed in Section 6.1.

Moreover, a deficiency in managerial workspace awareness concerning employee concerns, or an assumption among employees that such awareness is lacking, can also precipitate problematic circumstances. In this context, a production employee articulates a specific concern about being misunderstood:

At first, you’re afraid: “Will I be monitored? Will I reveal too much?” Fear, not among each other in the shift, but in the department. Fear that it will spread to the administrative level. [...] Because the administrative level doesn’t know the smallest man down there and forms an opinion on the basis of these figures, yes. They immediately say: “Who was on the shift? Why did he do less? The man is no good.” (Quote 10, P14)

P14 identifies a potential issue with the interpretation of information transmitted via digital systems at various levels of the company. He postulates that management may not be fully aware of the interests of employees or perceive them as a faceless entity. This could result in a reticence to divulge personal information, leading to a hidden profile of the employee in the present context (Figure 2). Moreover, with regard to the broader issue of cooperation, Gutwin and Greenberg (2002) also indicate that, in instances where there is a deficiency in workspace awareness, opportunities for cooperation are not identified because there is a lack of anticipation of the working environment of others.

In contrast, the following quote exemplifies a scenario in which workspace awareness is present. P6 illustrates the significant differences in the benefits of an awareness mechanism and the potential for both positive and negative effects. It takes place in the context of modern digital production systems, which are now equipped with sensors that not only record accurate performance but describe the condition of the equipment. A typical organisational structure for accessing this information is outlined by P6:

The system takes over the control and serves as a record of the work, i.e., the wear and tear, in that sense. You are supported in your work so that you don’t produce the wrong parts or keep to the parameters. That is an advantage in my view and makes the work easier. It gives the employees, and also the leader a sense of safety because everything can be checked [by yourself]. The system logs everything. On the other hand, the disadvantage is that the employees are forced to bring in more pieces. (Quote 11, P6)

The continuous technical inspection of the production process increases the employee’s workspace awareness of machine wear, which enables him to adjust promptly and improve process reliability. For him, this also means the possibility of proving the correctness of his activity to his leaders, from which he feels socially facilitated and derives an increased psychological safety, in alignment with the results of May et al. (2004), and Javed and Kohda (2021). This situation also exemplifies how P6 perceives the advantages of relinquishing responsibility for quality control, which can, in turn, give rise to feelings of social inhibition. At the same time, the technical review also increases the awareness of the management about the performance of the employees. This leads to increased pressure on him to perform. This dichotomous view is confirmed by P11: ‘Digitalisation that makes work easier is nice, but [...] it just makes everything more complicated, and that just takes the fun out of work.’ (Quote 12, P11).

P11 recognises the benefits of making work easier through digitalisation measures in production workplaces. At the same time, however, there is a danger that digitalisation will turn work processes into increasingly complex systems. Workers will no longer be able to easily keep track of them. Instead of bringing relief and better awareness, they have the opposite effect. Both P6 and P11 make it clear that they fear more coercion and less enjoyment through awareness, because the technical controls would also make management more aware of workers’ performance. As a result, they see themselves under increased pressure to perform, and the above-mentioned benefits become less important in their view, so that social inhibition increases (Figure 2).

Findings from Quotes 11 and 12 suggest that disruptions in awareness change the relationship between employees and management. Our participants, similarly to what has been observed by Men et al. (2020), are concerned about surveillance and misinterpretation of work engagement, as well as a loss of psychological safety. In what follows, we will address these aspects and elaborate on how managers might react in different ways to perceived more complex working conditions. Our analysis suggests that leaders in a situation of ongoing digitalisation should not only pay attention to maintaining their own awareness but, rather, pay attention to the integrity of their employees in order to protect them from the concerns described above and to prevent, for example, social inhibition, the withholding of opinions and groupthink.

Our findings also demonstrate how, in an ongoing digitalisation, successful leadership exists in the context of self-reinforcing managerial awareness and motivation. If managers have sufficient workspace awareness of the knowledge, the ways of thinking and acting of their employees, they can use this knowledge to establish project groups. This is shown in the following situation regarding the composition of a project group by leader P7, who describes his approach as follows:

Well, for me personally, I have to say that it always requires a certain amount of empathy towards the other employees in production. That’s why I always take a machine operator with me into the project group. From their point of view, it’s something completely different. I have to be able to put myself in their shoes. [...] In the end, I still try not to restrict the employees and to give them a certain amount of freedom to make decisions about their work. That is very important and reflects each individual employee. (Quote 13, P7)

Quote 13 gives an example of a group leader who uses his workspace awareness to involve even basic employees in projects in a targeted way and to better understand their perspectives. In the described situation of forming a project group, he has the empathy to imagine that the concerns of lower-ranking employees (who are to work on the projected machine after the project is completed) are also important for the work of the group. In alignment with the findings from Oceja et al. (2014), P7 sees heightened awareness as a foundational element of a dynamic system, cultivating empathy and an appreciation for diversity. This complies with arguments presented by Cole et al. (2022) and can be seen as an attempt to prevent hidden-profile situations through psychological safety (Figure 3).

Bild vergrößern

Subsequently, P19 adopts a perspective on the composition of groups that is similar to that of P7. He adds that open-mindedness is important in heterogeneous groups: ‘So the mix is actually good [...] so that you don’t get tunnel vision but look beyond your nose.’ (Quote 14, P19). The statement expresses that heterogeneous groups protect against limited views and allow broader awareness. This prevents groupthink, which according to Jezerskytė and Žydžiūnaitė (2005) can be avoided by listening, capability of analysing, evaluating and criticising. In this way, different points of view can be better combined, similar to what P7 reports. Provided that this exchange is not hampered by an inappropriate cohesion of the group members, it can also be assumed that the awareness of different opinions combined with appreciation of diversity and openness contributes to the avoidance of groupthink in short-time project groups (Figure 3). This is corroborated by the work of Hällgren (2010) who identifies homogeneity as a pivotal factor in groupthink.

In contrast, an entirely different phenomenon can be observed. It is characterised by the consequences of insufficient openness, as P21 resignedly describes them: ‘[...] there are also people who simply resign somewhere when they are not included or heard.’ (Quote 15, P2). For example, such an instance may be observed when the rationale for the lack of openness can be attributed to the phenomenon of groupthink among those who engage in the exclusionary practices. In the aforementioned situation, the act of exclusion also results in the resignation of the excluded employees. This, in turn, is associated with the potential for the formation of a hidden profile (Lu et al. 2012; Stasser and Titus 2003). As posited by Farooq et al. (2007), the consequence of low awareness of the excluded group is a detrimental impact on cooperative settings, particularly in the context of creative tasks. This reinforces what is said P1, who draws attention to the fact that long information paths can lead to limitations on awareness and, consequentially, result in loss of motivation:

Sometimes information is not shared with the people on the shop floor. So, for example, only the head of department, the foreman, and then the supervisor are informed, and at some point the little worker hears about it, and that is sometimes ... You think to yourself, that’s what sometimes neglects the motivation a little bit, is the information, that’s what comes to us at the very, very end. (Quote 16, P1)

In the opposite view, one of the employees emphasises the advantage that the problems from the employees’ environment can be channelled through a leader and transported to higher hierarchical levels. Thus, P2 describes: ‘All colleagues can tell him [the group leader] their problems. He always stands up for the group, and this is a good motivation for us.’ (Quote 17, P2). The trust placed in the employees by the leader’s awareness is perceived as motivating (Figure 3). Another finding underlines the special importance of trust and an empathetic relationship with employees:

I know what makes one person tick, what makes the other person tick, and if he doesn’t give his opinion, then I also know why [he] didn’t give his opinion, for example [... and ask him:] “What do you really think about it?”, and then he tells me: “Listen, I think it makes more sense this way and that way.” (Quote 18, P3)

The leader uses his knowledge of the employees’ personalities combined with his awareness of their hidden opinions. He uses a direct approach and, in this case, learns about the withheld opinion, which would otherwise be a case of a hidden profile (Figure 3). The situation described suggests that the individual contact creates an atmosphere of trust and psychological safety, which positively moderates the exchange of knowledge, similar to what is described by Edmondson and Lei (2014). Contrary to Kapp (2012), despite a non-positive group safety situation, leader P3 has the opportunity to exert a positive influence on employees. In this way, the leader removes the inhibition of employees to express themselves in a group (Figure 3). Another statement suggests that he relies on a long-standing knowledge of his staff for this: ‘With me, it’s always an advantage because I’ve known the staff for years.’ (Quote 19, P3). It is therefore reasonable to assume that building awareness in hierarchical relationships is also a long-term process of building trust. However, in contrast to the situation in Quote 18, the leader’s lack of awareness may inhibit employees to participate the discussion because of a subliminal fear that it will lead to negative consequences. As employee P5 explains:

Because, of course, you discuss one thing or another among your colleagues from time to time, and if it comes up in a meeting where the management is present, you usually say nothing because you are afraid of the consequences. (Quote 20, P5)

In contrast to P3, P5 does not dare to speak his mind out in the presence of the management. This is a sign of social inhibition, which carries the risk that information and ideas are deliberately withheld, and the awareness of all employees remains incomplete. This is in line with the findings from Cole et al. (2022), who only see an improvement in the quality of results with increasing certainty and attribute this to a greater willingness to take risks. A cycle in which low awareness leads to withholding of information and makes it more difficult to form new awareness will be discussed in Section 6.1.

In summary, our findings show that leadership can have a significant role in group coordination, the awareness of all participants and their motivation. Even in partially digitised productions, leadership is often exercised through interpersonal contact in the situations we observed. The following chapter discusses how this can be transferred to an information space to create a better overall awareness, and what pitfalls should be considered in an increasingly digitalised production.

As seen across Section 5, the awareness that comes with increasing digitalisation leads to employees having a better overview of their work and the environment in which they work. Thus, in the sense of Garcia et al. (2013), an expanded social comparison perspective is to be expected, leading to a variety of partly opposite effects.

The findings presented in Section 5.1 indicate that heightened awareness can, in certain instances, result in enhanced motivation. This is based on the premise that employees are able to observe themselves and their environment with greater intensity and engage in comparative analysis with one another, as already postulated by Jung et al. (2010). In this context, we observe a more intense competitive situation in which employees, such as P2, P17 or P18, are more attentive to their environment and increasingly focused on their work. In this regard, there is a recursive relationship between awareness and increased motivation, with awareness shifting from the environment to one’s own work. In particular, the findings demonstrate that performance is more discernible through awareness and is associated with social status within the organisation. Huang and Fu (2013) provide general support for this finding in the context of non-anonymous work. Also, they highlight the role of social facilitation, which is also evident in our findings, as a crucial factor in motivating individuals in competitive settings. This is corroborated by the findings of Kimmerle and Cress (2008) and Robison et al. (2021), which indicate that individuals demonstrate heightened commitment and exhibit greater levels of cooperation with their group members when they receive individual feedback and have a clearly defined goal in mind. In this context, it is important to note the findings of Sommer (1995), who emphasises that the resulting social competition itself does not create motivation, but only reinforces existing motivation. From the perspective of CSCW, it can be concluded that the creation of a motivation system requires more than the isolated generation of awareness with the objective of fostering social competition. Motivation must be induced in a different form.

In accordance with the findings of Kluger and DeNisi (1998), it is crucial to acknowledge that intentions are subject to alteration as a result of shifts in goal-setting. Our results indicate that employees, such as P2, P6 and P17, may shift from task-related intentions to group-specific or individual intentions, such as competition or responsibility for colleagues, even when their awareness is altered. On occasion, the enjoyment derived from the work itself is prioritised over the pursuit of enhanced processes. However, this also corresponds to a distraction from the original goals, as described by Grant and Shandell (2022). Should the goals in question not align with those set out by superiors and colleagues, for instance if they require an excess of diligence, this could result in the emergence of goal conflicts. Furthermore, in addition to the benefits of enhanced goal focus through awareness, there is also the potential for adverse consequences. In this context, Vadera and Pathki (2021) highlight individuals with low levels of moral identity and moral sensitivity, who may be particularly susceptible to this distraction in relation to personal goals. Therefore, it is possible for individuals or groups to prioritise their individual goals and create hidden profiles. In conclusion, in a CSCW system, awareness should therefore be promoted to the degree that it facilitates the coordination of task-related intentions while avoiding distraction from individual or group-specific intentions.

In general, motivation is not only related to the goals that have been set, but also to the feedback that is provided regarding the achievement of these goals. The findings demonstrate that employees who are aware of their colleagues’ performance utilise this knowledge to provide feedback to their colleagues like P2. Despite the aforementioned, colleagues can be encouraged to perform better in this manner. However, Kluger and DeNisi (1998) highlight the potential for counterproductive performance outcomes to emerge from their feedback intervention. In accordance with the tenets of goal-setting theory, the degree to which the established goal deviates from the individual’s projected outcome significantly influences this phenomenon. Should this discrepancy be perceived as too considerable by the individual, a sense of being overwhelmed may ensue, ultimately leading to the abandonment of further goal setting (Roose and Williams 2018). If the goal is within the anticipated range of goal achievement, a motivated action occurs, and this action is more pronounced the larger the gap (Locke and Latham 2006). Once more, the motivation to obtain feedback diminishes when the fulfilment of the objective significantly exceeds the prescribed targets. In a CSCW system, awareness plays a role in this comparison at two distinct points. Firstly, it concerns the awareness of the objectives. Secondly, it concerns the awareness of one’s own performance. Notably, awareness does not solely reside within the individual but is also shaped by their environment.

Some employees perceived the expansion of the cues consciously recorded by their awareness and their processing as an additional cognitive burden. Similarly, studies conducted by Bødker and Christiansen (2006); Dabbish and Kraut (2004) have yielded comparable findings with regard to information-rich advertisements. The findings illustrate that employees perceive a transformation in their work environment. Such individuals may become inhibited, experience anxiety, and lose enjoyment of their work. This appears to be particularly problematic as, in the interviews, enjoyment and relief are also explicitly highlighted as a key motivating factor, which is consistent with the findings of Hosseini et al. (2022). It can be observed as consequence that, in order to avoid additional cognitive stress or strain, some employees develop their own standards of restrictive awareness. This filtering process described by David and Borges (2001) is employed to circumvent information overload. Our results show that individual filters and the risk of information overload have a significant impact on which aspects are considered crucial by employees. At the same time, we must consider the findings of Jhaver et al. (2023), which indicate that people require a high level of context awareness to use personal content filtering tools effectively. Conversely, our results demonstrate that employees have partially limiting filters.

It is also important to consider the extent to which employees disengage from understanding shared intentions, for example by paying less attention to the well-being of colleagues (Dabbish and Kraut 2008). Conversely, production management also establishes standards for the information provided, which in turn results in the standardisation of awareness. On the one hand, the resulting alignment of awareness can facilitate the completion of tasks. However, it has been observed, this can also result in demotivation, as employees may feel alienated. For the design of a CSCW system it is therefore important to consider that facilitated awareness may influence the independent filtering of employees, while standardisation by production management may also influence awareness. It is thus imperative to consider both components of awareness formation in a holistic manner, in accordance with the principles of responsible leadership.

The findings indicate that some employees are constrained in their awareness due to limited access to information and experience a sense of exclusion from the company. Conversely, employees perceive themselves to be the subject of extensive data collection, with no influence over the inferences drawn from this data about them. Those in lower positions seem to be more likely to be subject to monitoring and are unable to control the dissemination of the outcomes of their work, a phenomenon also observed by Olson and Olson (2003). Some groups and individuals experience a sense of insecurity when they perceive a lack of knowledge or insight from their leadership, even if this is only suspected. In light of the findings regarding situations characterised by limited awareness, it can be inferred that there is a potential risk of a lack of psychological security for employees (Javed and Kohda 2021). In response to this, some employees choose to withhold information, effectively creating a hidden profile. Moreover, the apprehension of being misjudged impedes the formation of socially recursive inference (Tenenberg et al. 2016). This indicates that employees feel inhibited in their work and that they deliberately refrain from sharing all of their knowledge with management due to a perceived lack of psychological safety. This finding is consistent with the observations from Javed and Kohda (2021), who argue that a lack of awareness on the part of management increases the fear of employees being misjudged, which can in turn exacerbate the formation of a hidden profile. This creates a vicious cycle. Our results are thus consistent with the observation of an interpersonal distrust loop by Černe et al. (2014), in which employees increasingly withhold knowledge from each other due to the poor climate.

This phenomenon is compounded by the fact that we have encountered managers who have explicitly stated that they are reliant on the awareness of their employees. In order to enhance their own awareness, they require information from their employees regarding ongoing production data and processes, given that they themselves lack direct access to this information. These managers perceive their role to be at risk as a consequence of the hidden profiles described. Our findings indicate that some leaders, such as P3, P7 and P19, thus demonstrate a keen interest in actively involving employees in decision-making processes. These observations align with those of Grudin (1988), which posit that employees and managers experience benefits or challenges in varying ways in response to awareness. In order to address these considerations in a CSCW system in an appropriate manner, it is necessary to consider possible interruptions and privacy issues when providing awareness and to adapt it to the needs of individual users, as also recommended by Collazos et al. (2019). In contrast to Janneck (2009), we conclude that awareness must be individually tailored to employees, their surroundings and their activities.

As previously indicated, the findings from the production show the presence of psychological safety or insecurity, which is determined from various perspectives by existing awareness. In this sense, P8 and P14 feel under surveillance, while P17 and P18 feel relieved of time pressure or the pressure to justify himself. The range of perceptions regarding the effects of digital system introduction varies not only between individuals but also depending on the specific work context. The findings demonstrate that employees in complex work situations with high levels of personal responsibility increase their workplace awareness through digital support, thereby experiencing enhanced feelings of safety and reduced stress.

From the perspective of management, our findings indicate that effective leadership is characterised by leaders who utilise their awareness and ability to engage employees in a participatory manner. To achieve this, managers such as P3 and P7 utilise their awareness and develop meta-knowledge, for example, regarding the diverse capabilities of a heterogeneous group. Our findings indicate that this approach results in more effective decision-making and greater employee satisfaction. Similarly, Osinski and Rummel (2019) present findings that corroborate this conclusion, indicating that the utilisation of meta-knowledge can effectively mitigate the influence of hidden profiles. The findings also align with the results of previous studies conducted by Cole et al. (2022) and Davidavičienė et al. (2020). These studies have demonstrated that when leadership fosters a culture of trust, it increases employees’ willingness to share knowledge. Conversely, our findings align with those of Moe and Šmite (2007) in suggesting that a lack of trust can result in a decline in performance. The results demonstrate that trust is particularly promoted through personal contacts with the manager. The findings of Constantinides and Quercia (2022) indicate that trust supported by the leaders also contributes to the integration of employees and their social facilitation, which can in turn lead to an improved awareness of a group. Consequently, in order to construct a CSCW system to support awareness, it is essential to design personal and digital contacts on an individual basis, in a participatory and trusting manner.

Both the literature and our results indicate that individual characteristics influence a person’s awareness. The awareness we are investigating presupposes the involvement of the person to whom awareness in production is provided. However, we see situations where it is important that not only the heeding takes place, but also an understanding of the content is required, which should open up awareness. In this respect, the workspace awareness takes on the character of a provision of cues that are also understood in terms of the intentions for which awareness is opened.

Especially in the case of cooperation across spatially and temporally distances, technical support helps to compensate for the lack of workspace awareness, making it more efficient and effortless (Bardram and Hansen 2010; Gutwin and Greenberg 2002). There is already a number of studies in the field of software industry that deals with the emerging challenges of global cooperation - e.g., Bibri (2019), Jiménez et al. (2009), Malik et al. (2018), and Steinmacher et al. (2013). But even smaller geographical distances already lead to a need for technical support, as studies on hospitals show - e.g., Bardram and Hansen (2004, 2010). However, even in the manufacturing industry, there are always problems in cooperative settings, as different workplaces are often spatially distributed, work is carried out in different shifts and the challenge of developing digital solutions to promote coordination to enhance cooperation among employees increases as a result (De Carvalho et al. 2022; Ludwig et al. 2021). Furthermore, awareness influences cooperative interactions by mediating between and supporting the three dimensions of cooperation, communication, and coordination (Fuks et al. 2008; Mantau and Barreto Vavassori Benitti 2022; Steinmacher et al. 2013). This must be considered in a special way in the digitalisation of the workplace, as working with digital applications makes interaction more difficult (Schmidt and Randall 2016).

Our results indicate that in increasingly digitalised production contexts, there is a significant requirement to harmonise awareness in relation to motivation, psychological safety and leadership activities. At the same time, Mantau and Barreto Vavassori Benitti (2022) note that only a limited number of studies have addressed the role of awareness in cooperative settings to date. A review of their taxonomy indicates that individual aspects of influencing awareness predominate. Greenberg and Gutwin (2016) highlight that the degree of interest in fostering group awareness varies depending on the circumstances. To address research question 2, it is essential to consider how issues of awareness in increasingly digitalised production contexts can be incorporated into the design of an AS to support cooperation within groups. Our findings indicate that certain requirements must be met in order to consider social aspects in groups. As previously stated in the introduction, we propose the specification of an AS, which, building upon insights from de De Carvalho et al. (2022), takes into account the social dependencies that occur in groups.

Bild vergrößern

In the absence of an explicit focus on awareness, preliminary approaches emphasise the importance of transparent behaviour and information, as well as the relevance of contextualised processing in AS. Our findings shed light towards the complexity of awareness mediation in contexts undergoing digitalisation. As illustrated in Figure 4, several additional aspects require further elaboration and should be taken seriously in increasingly digitalised production. They include the fact that: (1) motivation is influenced not only directly by awareness, but also indirectly by factors such as competition, goal setting and feedback; (2) awareness is perceived differently by employees, with some viewing it as a burden and others as a relief; (3) awareness can have a beneficial or a detrimental effect on psychological safety; (4) psychological safety, along with trust, can also affect awareness that individuals enable towards others; and (5) differing anticipation of awareness can lead employees to feel observed and misunderstood by leaders.

Ultimately, we argue that AS (6) should support leadership in developing employee awareness in a reflective and mutually agreed manner. Venkatesh et al. (2003) have already pointed out the acceptance problems that arise with the implementation of new technologies among users. Accordingly, our findings and the literature indicate that an AS (7) should be designed in a technological way that motivates users and promotes the use of the system actively, as is also indicated by Bansler and Havn (2006) and Ciborra (1996).

For further clarification, we will expand upon the AS example provided by De Carvalho et al. (2022) in Figure 5. We take up the digital systems mentioned there but assign new roles to the employees. The various employees have access to different channels within the AS, which differ in terms of access options available to each system. The systems referred to are part of the fundamental equipment of a digitised production in different configurations.

Bild vergrößern

This example demonstrates some of the key aspects of awareness that arise in AS. While the initial example focuses on issues of articulation and coordination as well as the meta-coordination mechanism of an AS (De Carvalho et al. 2022), this example adds the perspective of awareness. In this context, awareness influences how employees develop coordination mechanisms for sharing and processing information or coordinate their work activities with each other and orientate towards goals. Furthermore, it shows how awareness affects leadership and thus coordination within the organisational structure.

The first channel is used by employees E1, E2 and E3 and provides them access to the MES, the PDA for the machines and the collaboration software. E1 and E2 only have access to the systems within the first channel, whereas E3 is also included in the second channel with access to the ERP system and the Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems along with E4 and E5. In addition, the employees in channel 2 have access to channel-specific areas of the PDA. Both channels are capable of utilising the full functionality of the collaboration software. Consequently, E3 is the sole employee using the entire technical infrastructure of the AS.

Moreover, the degree of individual utilisation of the systems can vary. For instance, although individual employees can access shared systems of the AS, but they can use them differently despite having the same authorisations or skills, as illustrated in Figure 6 using the example of E1.

Bild vergrößern

The illustration shows the cooperation of E1, E2 and E3 within the first channel, and provides a more comprehensive view of the CIS supporting it. As mentioned before, these three employees are using the MES, PDA and collaboration software together concurrently. However, E1 is only allowed individual access to the MES and channel-specific access to the PDA. Only the collaboration software is fully accessible to E1 in order to ensure coordination of the group. It is therefore the responsibility of the leader to organise access rights to the systems and to establish a culture of trust, as recommended by Cole et al. (2022) and Davidavičienė et al. (2020), among others. Besides the limited information provided, uncertainty may lead to E1 using additional personal filters.

In accordance with aspect (3), it is essential that leaders actively support employees in developing their awareness, enhancing their psychological safety and applying access rights and personal filters in a targeted manner. In this way, leaders can use their own awareness to promote formal and informal cooperation in groups and facilitate their coordination. Additionally, it is also possible that E1 has not recognised the full usefulness of the MES and PDA, or even perceives the effort required to use the systems as excessive. To achieve the desired utilization of the systems in the AS, it is crucial to consider aspects of technology acceptance when designing them (cf. aspect 7).

Nevertheless, the individual use of the systems in the AS also generally results in an asymmetrical distribution of information within the entire group. In comparison to E3, this causes uncertainty for E1, E2, E4 and E5, which in turn reduces their psychological safety and requires a higher level of trust. Contrary to aspect (4), this impairs their awareness of E3 and each other. A decreased sharing of information leads to enquiries and disruptions, which in turn requires an increased coordination effort.

Moreover, at the company’s administrative planning level, E4 and E5 also have access to the ERP system, in addition to E3. It is not intended that E1 and E2 will be connected to the ERP system; consequently, they have no access to this information. For example, E3 has a leadership position and is aware of all employees in both channels, which can compensate for the discrepancies in authorisation and information access among employees. From the opposite perspective, E3 requires awareness of the work progress and quality of the tasks completed by E1 and E2 in order to coordinate the distribution of work effectively. There is a risk that E1 and E2 will perceive the awareness provided by E3 as burdensome (cf. aspect 2) or that their psychological safety will be impaired (cf. aspect 3). This may occur if the employees in the individual channels anticipate the awareness of E3 in different ways, which increases the likelihood of misunderstandings in communication (cf. aspect 5).

However, analogous to aspect (6), E3 is supported by the AS in his role and through his access to a broad information base in both channels, which allows him to further develop employee awareness in both channels. In contrast to E1 and E2, E4 and E5, together with E3, use their access to the ERP system for goal-setting, with corresponding feedback from management. E4 and E5 thus gain a competitive advantage compared to E1 and E2 and are motivated as described in aspect (1).

Furthermore, E1 and E2, together with E3, have access to the MES, which serves as a source of information for the coordination of production activities. E3 disseminates objectives and work instructions to E1 and E2 from the ERP system, as well as drawings and other specifications from the CAD system. The processing of information depends on the mutual awareness among E1, E2 and E3. Together with all other employees (E4 and E5), E3 accesses the PDA to record data from machines and production equipment and receives analyses of productivity and quality as the main production parameters. Agreements between employees are distributed via the collaboration software. Due to their direct involvement in production, employees E1 and E2 are also networked via the MES with all other parties involved in the production process. Combined with their access to the PDA, this facilitates the further development of their awareness of productivity and quality, and thereby strengthens their psychological safety as described in aspect (3).

In addition to information provided by the PDA, the collaboration software is the only platform that allows all employees involved in the AS to develop awareness of the group collectively. For instance, the collaboration software facilitates communication and coordination between E1, E2, and E3. It can assist in addressing discrepancies in anticipated awareness among employees (cf. aspect 5) and in enabling E3 to reflect the awareness of E1 and E2 and create mechanisms for coordination (cf. aspect 6).

Similarly, the access to the CAD system is limited to the second channel of the AS, analogous to the ERP system. As well as E3, the system is used by E4 and E5. E4 and E5 have a planning function for production and use the CAD system for coordination purposes, to compare geometric specifications with their planning and to provide them to production. This enables them to generate feedback themselves which, in the context of our example, gives them additional individual motivation (cf. aspect 1).

The example above demonstrates the heterogeneity of individuals, as shown in our results. These differences are further emphasised by their diverse experiences, training and objectives. The AS should therefore also help to capture the different categories of stakeholders (Niemantsverdriet et al. 2019) and to disseminate awareness about these individual status categories. The aim is to reduce anxieties, as indicated by our findings, e.g. towards the administrative or leadership level.

To reduce anxieties and convey the value of technological solutions to users, Mesgari and Okoli (2019) recommend a human mediator. The role of the mediator is to facilitate the adoption of the technology and thereby increase its acceptance (Okamura et al. 1994). As previously described in Section 2.4, the concept of AS is based on the principle of CIS. In order to support CIS users and disseminate relevant information, Bannon and Bødker (1997) also suggest that a human mediator must be involved.

Based on our findings, we propose that a mediator should actively engage with individuals, their cooperation, and their technological work environment. The mediator should consider the social impact and facilitate the development and exchange of relevant content among employees, as also emphasised by Bannon and Bødker (1997) and Bødker and Klokmose (2011). Accordingly, the following section aims to argue for the function of a GM, whose focus is on the organisation of social relationships, awareness and coordination mechanisms within an AS. Furthermore, Bansler and Havn (2006) suggest the implementation of an IT supporter, acting as a mediator between users and IT.

It is the responsibility of the GM to work with employees to determine the scope of the required articulation work, which Bossen (2002) has identified as a significant source of tension. Our findings indicate that it is essential to consider the sensitisation of employees and leaders. In addition to the social impacts discussed, the GM should recognise information overload and balance it against potential hidden profiles due to inadequate articulation. Moreover, the GM should clarify the extent to which formalised coordination mechanisms can support employees. In this regard, Boden et al. (2014) assume that employees are provided with precisely the amount of information needed for their tasks and well-being. The aim is to support employees in achieving a balanced awareness and in developing their filters. Due to the complexity mentioned, we believe that the GM must be a human and not some sort of autonomous system.

Our findings consistently show that leaders in particular want to be aware of the attitudes and circumstances of their employees. In such instances, a GM can advise and assist by helping to articulate the views of employees who would otherwise be ignored. While we have observed a number of face-to-face solutions in this context, these have not always proved sufficient. In particular, when their leaders are present, employees are reluctant to engage in face-to-face solutions. In these cases, a GM could act as mediator to facilitate awareness of the social situation on both sides. Nevertheless, as employees and leaders might be hesitant to share their intentions and expertise, it is up to the GM to engage with individuals to determine their level of awareness. Similarly, Houtti et al. (2023) suggest that leaders should be granted restricted control functions in online meetings to reduce the potential for bias. Similarly, a GM has to ensure a balance between the individual need for enhanced security and awareness among colleagues and leaders, to prevent information overload or concerns about mistakes. Furthermore, the GM must consider that trust is typically higher when the competence and qualifications of a source are known (Levin and Cross 2004). Therefore, a GM can counteract the loss of trust caused by a lack of personal contact in digital environments by increasing trust through more detailed descriptions of individual competencies.

Our analysis demonstrate that the focus is not on maximising attention, but rather on consensus, as described by Hepsø (2009) and Niemantsverdriet et al. (2019) for cooperative group work. This task is consistent with the idea of CIS, in which employees need a certain level of consensus or commonality of cooperation (Mohallick et al. 2022). However, full consensus is not necessary, as will also not be possible in many situations. In this respect, this finding is relevant to the fulfilment of the tasks of a GM as it indicates that a certain level of withheld information or a corresponding hidden profile need not be harmful. This means that the GM does not need to aim for maximum commonality (Markopoulos 2009). Additionally, existing perceptual differences, e.g. due to less motivated participation of group members, can be temporarily accepted under certain circumstances, as long as there is an agreement on the identity of the object (Mohallick et al. 2022) and they are not perceived as negative by the group and do not lead to demotivation. Accordingly, in certain contexts, the GM can refrain from providing maximum transparency when weighing up conflicts of interest, whereby psychological safety and social impacts must be taken into account. To this end, employees need a certain degree of autonomy, preferably without being monitored (Swezey and Vertesi 2019). A lack of transparency, in turn, can also undermine their autonomy, so a balance must be found (Ajunwa 2020). In particular, from employees, flexibility and care are required, while considering the overlapping, heterogeneous and even competing relationships between them Swezey and Vertesi (2019). At the same time, the GM should be aware of the intangible mechanisms of interaction in production that reduce the need for regulated coordination and grant employee’s autonomy.