www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
25,6 New model of job design:
motivating employees’
performance
572
Pooja Garg and Renu Rastogi
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Received 19 April 2005
Revised 12 July 2005 Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India
Accepted 7 September 2005
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to identify the key issues of job design research and practice to motivate
employees’ performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The conceptual model of Hackman and Oldham’s job
characteristics has been adopted to motivate employees’ performance.
Findings – The paper finds that a dynamic managerial learning framework is required in order to
enhance employees’ performance to meet global challenges.
Practical implications – Traditional outcomes will certainly remain central to the agenda. But
some wider developments are to be incorporated within organizational systems so as to motivate
employees for better performance.
Originality/value – The paper may be of value to researchers and practitioners in the management
development field for offering enhanced jobs to employees leading to improved performance.
Keywords Job design, Motivation (psychology), Learning, Organizational performance
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
There is an established body of knowledge supporting the idea that certain jobs and
goal setting can enhance performance. This paper focuses on motivating performance
through job design. It is experienced that well designed jobs can have a positive impact
on both employee satisfaction and the quality of performance. In the present paper, it is
proposed that a well-defined job would enhance motivation, satisfaction and
performance of the employees. Thus, for both academicians and practitioners, job
design takes on special importance in today’s human resource management. It is
essential to design jobs so that stress can be reduced, motivation can be enhanced, and
satisfaction of employees and their performance can be improved so that organizations
can effectively compete in the global marketplace.
Initially, the field of organizational behavior paid attention only to job enrichment
(JE) approaches to job design. Now, job design has taken a broader perspective, with
various dimensions such as job enrichment (JE), job engineering (JEng), quality of work
life (QWL), sociotechnical designs, the social information processing approach (SIPA)
and the job characteristics approach to job design. The proposed model recognizes
Journal of Management Development certain job characteristics that contribute to certain psychological states, and that the
Vol. 25 No. 6, 2006
pp. 572-587 strength of the employee’s need for growth has an important moderating effect.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
The aim of this paper is to identify the key issues of job design research and
DOI 10.1108/02621710610670137 practice, particularly in relation to higher-level jobs. To provide the context for the
account that follows, we first take a backward glance at job design. We then briefly New model of job
describe the approaches to job design with emphasis on the job characteristics design
approach to job design in detail, followed by a literature review of the job
characteristics approach. Later we present the proposed model of job design, and its
future implications or outcomes.
Job design and its approaches are usually considered to have begun with scientific
management in the year 1900. Pioneering scientific managers such as Taylor (1947), 573
Gilbreth (1911), and Gilbreth and Gilbreth (1917) systematically examined jobs with
various techniques. They suggested that task design might be the most prominent
element in scientific management.
With respect to the design of individual jobs, the first major theory was that of
Herzberg and his colleagues (Herzberg et al., 1959). Their two-factor theory
distinguished between two types of factors, namely motivators, which are intrinsic
to the work itself (e.g. achievement, recognition, and responsibility), and hygiene
factors, which are extrinsic to the work (e.g. work conditions, pay, and supervision).
The proposition was that the hygiene factors are absolutely necessary to maintain the
human resources of an organization. According to Hertzberg’s theory, only a
challenging job has the opportunity for achievement, recognition, advancement and
growth that will motivate personnel.
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model (JCM), superseded the
two-factor theory. This identifies five core job characteristics, namely:
(1) skill variety;
(2) task identity;
(3) task significance;
(4) autonomy; and
(5) feedback.
The core job characteristics are followed by three critical psychological states, namely:
(1) experienced meaningfulness;
(2) experienced responsibility; and
(3) knowledge of results.
In turn, the critical psychological states are accountable for increased work satisfaction,
internal work motivation, performance and reduced absence and employee turnover. The
model assumes that autonomy and feedback are more important than the work
characteristics, and that individuals with higher growth need strength (i.e. desire for
challenges and personal development) will respond more positively to enriched jobs than
others. To this end, an extension to job design has been proposed that would help
organizations and employees to survive in the turbulent marketplace.
There was substantial interest from researchers and practitioners in job design
during the 1900s. Hackman et al. (1975), conducted a study and claimed that people on
enriched jobs are definitely more motivated and satisfied by their jobs. Another study
conducted by Griffin (1989) on 1,000 tellers from 38 banks of a large holding company
found from the job design intervention that employees perceive meaningful changes
and tend to recognize those changes over time. In addition to this, a meta-analysis of
JMD the job characteristics model (Fried and Ferris, 1987) found general support for the
25,6 model and for its effects on motivation and satisfaction and performance outcome.
Adler (1991) found that systems in which employees reported higher perceptions of
skill variety, task significance, autonomy, and feedback reported higher levels of
satisfaction and internal work motivation. Champoux (1991) theorized the
relationships that growth need strength moderates between the core job
574 characteristics and the critical psychological states and affective responses.
Moreover, Dodd and Ganster (1996) examined the interactive relationship between
feedback, autonomy and variety by manipulating the characteristics in lab. In their
study, Arce (2002) found that the reward from outside activities is affected by the
performance on inside activity. The study provides a rationale for the existence of
synergies between different activities. Loher et al. 1985) found the relation between job
characteristics and job satisfaction and also found that the relation was stronger for
employees high in growth need strength (GNS). Renn and Vandenberg (1995) studied
the strongest support for the job characteristic model that allowed the core job
dimensions to have direct and indirect effects on personal and work outcomes. Another
study conducted by Morrison et al. (2005) found that job designs that provide for high
levels of employee control also provide increased opportunities for the development
and exercise of skill. Also, mediational influence of perceived skill utilization on job
control job satisfaction has been observed. Love and Edwards (2005) concluded that
perceived work demands, job control and social support through job design leads to
high productivity. Sokoya (2000) found in his study that the level of job satisfaction is
determined by a combination of jobs, work and personal characteristics. Rotating
managers to different jobs adds the benefit of task variety, resulting in increased
performance of employees. Bassey (2002) observed in his study that skills, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback, job security and compensation are
important factors for the motivation of employees. Thus, the research done in this field
has created virtuous circles for more research and practice.
Figure 1.
Approaches to job design
JMD .
Autonomy. This refers to job independence. How much freedom and control
25,6 employees have to perform their job, for example, schedule their work, make
decisions or determine the means to accomplish the objectives.
.
Feedback. This refers to objective information about progress and performance that
can come from the job itself, from supervisors or from any other information system.
Figure 2.
Hackman-Oldham job
characteristics model
MPS ¼
ðskill variety þ task variety þ task significanceÞ
:
New model of job
autonomy £ feedback design
Besides this, the JDS also measures some supplementary job dimensions (feedback
from others, dealing with others), experienced psychological states (meaningfulness of
work, responsibility for work, knowledge of results), affective responses to the job
(general satisfaction, internal work motivation, growth satisfaction), context 577
satisfactions (pay satisfaction, security satisfaction, social satisfaction, supervisory
satisfaction), individual growth need strength (GNS), and MPS. The MPS scores can
range from 1 to 343. The average score is about 125.
Outcomes
The use of available resources and available technology along with various training
programs will definitely lead to increased productivity and increased levels of motivation
at individual level, group level, and social level. Also, considering the labour market on the
basis of variable-pay programs and flexible schedules will definitely lead to heightened
motivation and productivity, which in return leads to the creation of social capital,
assisting in meeting the structural, relational, and cognitive demands of the organization.
Designing jobs under consideration of internal organizational factors, it can be seen
that following appropriate management strategies will help in the creation of
opportunities for career development, skill acquisition and creativity for employees.
Performance evaluations will help employees to know their levels of motivation and make
efforts to improve them. Moreover, designing jobs ergonomically will help in the creation
of safe working conditions, avoiding musculoskeletal injuries and awkward postures. In
other words, the involvement of anatomy, physiology, and psychology in designing jobs
ergonomically will lead to high performance and reduced levels of stress in employees.
Knowledge management will also lead to proactive outcomes or performance. Once
knowledge dissemination, utilization and acquisition are required in a linear fashion,
learning organizations can be created where novel ideas and thoughts are developed,
interpreted, and implemented and knowledge is transformed throughout the system with
the objective of achieving organizational goals efficiently and creating autonomy in
performing jobs, hence motivating employees towards high performance. Finally,
following a transformational leadership style in motivating employees will definitely lead
to collective representations and collective emotional experiences, hence leading to the
creation of a collectivistic culture within organizations as well as the creation of a high
performing environment (HPE; see Figure 3). In other words, appropriate job design will
lead to proactive performance and finally to learning and developing nations.
583
Figure 3.
The proposed model of job
design
become one of the salient features of job design, hence, leading to a better quality of
work life (QWL).
In today’s world, to survive in the turbulent marketplace, creativity, innovation,
skill and knowledge acquisition have become major aspects in improving the
performance of employees and creating virtuous circles for organizations to reach the
pinnacle, as they lead to improved decision-making and goal setting.
Finally, in terms of practical recommendations, empowerment is an effective strategy
for promoting expertise. It creates an effective and safe environment within which
JMD individuals can acquire skills. Importantly, empowerment provides an opportunity for
25,6 employees to apply new skills, which is likely to reinforce the values of personal
development. It can be regarded as an effective means of improving skills and can be
regarded as an effective strategy for managing knowledge in two respects:
(1) the provision of information systems and support from technical experts
represents a systematic practice for disseminating knowledge through an
584 organization; and
(2) enhanced decision-making responsibility has the potential to tap into
employees’ existing knowledge and skills, drawing on their personal
experiences and ideas to improve the effectiveness of work systems.
Conclusion
There are various approaches that allow management to design jobs for employee
motivation, increased productivity and future growth. In order for the job design to be
effective, management needs to look at what aspects of the jobs are important and better
fit the organizational goals. Thus, one of the major purposes of job design is to be able to
discuss what is needed from the job and the employees. It is of current interest in
establishing a link between human resource management (HRM) or high involvement
practices and organizational performance with an increase in intrinsic motivation.
The implication of the model finally leads to the positive affective state of “flow”
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), which is experienced by an individual in certain situations. It
is the total attention and psychic energy devoted to the task in hand, and feelings of
exhilaration, comfort and energy. An individual experiences this state when there is a
match between an individual’s perceived skills and tasks. Thus, effective job design
has become one of the salient aspects of human resource management and
organizational behaviour so as to survive in the global workplace (see Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Outcome of the proposed
model of job design
Thus, we can conclude that changes in the business environment profoundly affect New model of job
organizations and the people working within them. The proposal has been made in the design
belief that we will be able to build a systematic, symbiotic, task-induced, and high
performance environment.
References
Adler, N.J. (1991), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent, 585
Boston, MA, pp. 58-60.
Anand, D.S. (2001), “Differences in HR management”, New Strait Times, January.
Arce, H. (2002), Job Design and The English East India Company, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Ashmos, D.P. and Duchon, D. (2000), “Spirituality at work: a conceptualization and measure”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 134-45.
Bassey, M. (2002), “Motivation and work: investigation and analysis of motivational factors at
work”, available at: www.ep.liu.se/exjobb/eki/2002/fek/009/
Carayon, P. (1993), “A longitudinal test of Karasek’s job strain model among office workers”,
Work and Stress, Vol. 7, pp. 239-314.
Champoux, J.E. (1991), “A multivariate test of the job characteristic theory of work motivation”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 431-76.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience: Finding Flow, Harper
Collins, New York, NY.
Dean, J.W. and Snell, S.A. (1991), “Integrated manufacturing and job design: moderating effects
of organizational inertia”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 774-804.
Dodd, N.G. and Ganster, D.C. (1996), “The interactive effects of task variety, autonomy, and feedback
on attitudes and performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 329-47.
Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and
meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.
Gilbreth, F.B. (1911), Motion Study, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
Gilbreth, F.B. and Gilbreth, L.M. (1917), Applied Motion Study, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Griffin, W.R. (1989), “Work redesign effects on employee attitudes and behaviors: a long-term
field experiment”, Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 216-7.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, R.G. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, R.G. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, R.G., Janson, R. and Purdy, K. (1975), “A new strategy for job
enrichment”, California Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 55-71.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959), The Motivation to Work, Wiley, New York, NY.
Loher, B.T., Noe, R.A., Moeller, N.L. and Fitzgerald, M.P. (1985), “A meta-analysis of the relation
of job characteristics to job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2,
pp. 280-9.
Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J. (2005), “Taking the pulse of UK construction project managers’
health: influence of job demands, job control and social support on psychological
well-being”, Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 88-101.
JMD Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A. and Payne, P. (2005), “Job design, opportunities for skill
utilization, and intrinsic job satisfaction”, European Journal of Work and Organizational
25,6 Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 59-79.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghosal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 242-66.
Renn, W.R. and Vandenberg, J.R. (1995), “The cultural psychological states: an underrepresented
586 component on job characteristics model research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 279-303.
Sokoya, K.S. (2000), “Personal predictors of job satisfaction for the public sector managers:
implications for management practice and development in a developing company”,
Journal of Business in Developing Nations, Vol. 4, article 1.
Swanson, D.L. (1999), “Toward an integrative theory of business and society: a research strategy for
corporate social performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 506-21.
Tanner, M. (1998), “Self managed groups do it for Do-It-All”, Human Resource International
Digest, Vol. 6 No. 4, p. 12.
Taylor, F.W. (1947), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.
Van Colt, H.P. (1985), “High technology and human needs”, Ergonomics, Vol. 28, pp. 1135-42.
Further reading
Ali, A.N. (2002), “Knowledge management, comprehensive intellectual capital management: the
future of business management”, available at www.cio.com/forums/knowledge
Angel, B., Alcover, M.C., Rico, R. and Gil, F. (2005), “Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction, and
performance”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 314, pp. 312-28.
Bloodgood, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bolino, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behaviors and the creation
of social capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 505-22.
Cohen, A.R. and Gadon, H. (1978), Alternative Work Schedules: Integrating Individual and
Organizational Needs, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Combs, W.L. and Falletta, S.V. (2000), Targeted evaluation process, American Society for
Training and Development, Alexandria, VA, available at: www.astd.org
Davenport, H.T. (1998), “Some principles of knowledge management”, Graduate School of
Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, available at: http://mccombs.utexas.edu/kman/
kmprin.htm
Desmond, J.L., Wall, T.D. and Jackson, P.J. (2003), “The effect of empowerment on job knowledge:
an empirical test involving operators of complex technology”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76, Part 1, pp. 27-52.
Dutton, W.A. (2001), “Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work”,
Academy of Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, p. 179.
Feher, P. (2004), “Combining knowledge and change management at consultancies”, Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, Issue 1, Paper 3, available at: www.astd.org
Fried, Y., Tetrick, E.L. and Tiegs, B.R. (1992), “Growth need strength and context satisfactions as
moderators of the relations of the job characteristics model”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 18, pp. 575-93.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, R.G. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hackman, J.R., Oldham, R.G. and Suttle, J.L. (1997), Work Design: Improving Life at Work:
Behavioral Science Approaches to Organizational Change, Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA.
Heinz, W. and Harold, K. (2001), Management: A Global Perspective, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill, New New model of job
York, NY.
Human Resources-Manufacturing Extension Partnership (2005), National Institute of Standards
design
and Technology, US Commerce Department Technology Administration, available at:
www.mep-nist.gov
Johnnie, B.P. (1997), “Motivating the public sector workers in Nigeria”, Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, Vol. 32 No. 3. 587
Langford, J. and Whitfield, D. (2001), “Ergonomics”, in Blakemore, C. and Jennett, S, (Eds), The
Oxford Companion to the Body, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Luthans, F. (1998), Organizational Behavior, 8th ed., Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Singapore.
MacGregor, J. and Cunningham, B.J. (2000), “Trust and the design of work: complementary
constructs in satisfaction and performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 12, p. 1575.
Mammoria, C.B. (1999), Personnel Management, Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai.
Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R.W. (1989), Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
MA.
Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), Organizational Behavior: Managing People and
Organizations, 3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Murray, C.P. and Barclay, O.R. (1997), “Knowledge praxis”, available at www.media-access.com
Prasad, L.M. (1994), Organizational Behavior, Sultan Chand Publishing, New Delhi.
Reiman, T. and Oedewald, P. (2004), “Measuring maintenance culture and maintenance core task
with CULTURE-questionnaire: a case study in the power industry”, Safety Science, Vol. 42,
pp. 859-89.
Robins, S.P. (1997), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Robins, S.P. (2004), Organizational Behavior, 10th ed., Pearson Education, Singapore.
Slomp, J. and Molleman, E. (2001), “The impact of technological innovations on work design in a
cellular manufacturing environment”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 16 No. 3,
p. 152.
Usernomics.com (2005), “Efficacy of ergonomics, ergonomics assessment, training and safety”,
available at: www.usernomics.com/
Wagner, J.A. III (1994), “Participants’ effects of performance and satisfaction: a reconsideration of
research evidence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 312-30.
Wogalter, S.M. and Rogers, A.W. (2005), “Human factors/ergonomics: using psychology to make
a better and safer world”, The National Honor Society in Psychology PsiChi Publication,
Vol. 3 No. 3.
Xie, L.J. and Fang, Q.Y. (1992), “Mediating effects in job design”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18,
pp. 657-76.