Abstract:One current response to group work is that in publications addressed to management, work designers, and corporate consultants, the main interest seems to lie in process-related support of cooperation (e.g., training and moderating of group processes), in order to enable or select cooperation-oriented workers (e.g., Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008; Tannenbaum, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). It is argued that this imbalance in application corresponds to an overemphasis in basic research concerning the development of groupdynamic constructs and methods (e.g., process losses, intergroup conflicts), as opposed to the development of a task-related methodology (cf. Scholl, 1997) which focuses upon the creation of cooperation-promoting organizational structures such as collective self-regulation or autonomy (Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006; Ulich, 2005) as a prerequisite to successful group work. The present article was developed on the background of the thesis that a neglect of structural aspects of group work with primary consideration of process and personality variables could lead to both problematic attempts of application in practice and theoretical deficiencies. Concerning the former problem, it is doubtful, whether, for example, collective autonomy, common task orientation, cooperative attitudes or participatory behavior can be tapped sufficiently valid by means of only a few questionnaire items. In their research review, Paris, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (2000, p. 1056) conclude that there is yet no „... sound, validated and systematic methodology“ available for analyzing team tasks as a prerequisite to measure team performance (cf. also Brauner & Scholl, 2000; Salas et al., 2008). In the following, concepts, measurement methods, and findings of two studies will be presented that emphasize the importance of „objective“ orgaabstract In this article, a conceptual framework of collective action regulation in industrial work groups will be presented which is based on action regulation theory and related approaches. We state that collective regulation requirements resulting from collective planning and decision-making autonomy of work groups will be positively associated with the group members’ common task orientation, cooperative attitudes, work means and stores of knowledge (collective objectifications) developed and shared by the group members. Further, we report the results of a first test of the inter-rater reliability of a measurement method based on a condition-related observation interview that can be used to analyze and evaluate the structure of collective action regulation in industrial work groups considering psychological criteria for quality of work life. Findings of two cross-sectional field studies testing the hypothetical framework are reported. In total, 31 groups from three enterprises (automotive industry, engine manufacturing, tool manufacturing) in three German-speaking countries were analyzed using semi-standardized observation-interviews. Furthermore, 233 members from 28 of these groups in various production departments were interviewed applying standardized self-report scales. Results show that a high level of required planning and decision-making, together with joint thinking and communication, is positively associated with several cooperation-supporting attitudes as well as with the number of collective objectifications. Though, findings concerning a hypothesized relation between collective regulation requirements and common task orientation are inconsistent. High time pressure seems to act as a moderator.

Varieties of collective action: a multidimensional and paradigmatic methodology for their study

The Intentional Structure of Collective Action

Collective action control: Ubiquitous processes and cultural differences

Review: collective action, philosophy and law

Toward a cultural psychology of collective action: Just how “core” are the core motivations for collective action?

Clarifying the degree and type of public good collective action problem posed by natural resource management challenges

Beyond normative and non‐normative: A systematic review on predictors of confrontational collective action

Planned behavior, perceptual biases, and the dynamics of collective action

Analysis of Collective Action Regulation and Cooperation - Relevant Attitudes in Industrial Group Work

Cultural Differences and Collective Action: A Social Network Perspective

Collective Intuition: Implications for Improved Decision Making and Organizational Learning

When People Do Allyship: A Typology of Allyship Action

From Moment to Movement: Empowerment and Resilience as a Framework for Collective Action in Hong Kong

Intentional social action in virtual communities

Contrasting Approaches to Perceiving and Acting With Others

Conceptualizing contexts or contextualizing concepts? On some issues of the modeling of relational spaces in the study of collective action

A Relational Perspective on Collective Agency

Contextualism As an Important Facet of Individualism-Collectivism

Assemblage thinking as methodology: commitments and practices for critical policy research

Collective Action in Democratic Administration——An Issue of Organizational Behavior and the Explanation

Shared Protentions in Multi-Agent Active Inference