Job Redesign

Here we’re going to consider job motivation (etc) in terms of a person-centred

approach.

Job Simplification and Enrichment

Early on, job design focused on efficiency, cost reductions etc.:
 Minimizing skill requirements
 Maximizing management control
 Minimizing time.
This was through the concepts of Taylor (1911) and also known as the ‘scientific
management’ or ‘Taylorism’ method.

The system:
 Systematically compiled information about the required work tasks
 Removed discretion and control
 Simplified tasks as much as possible
 Specified standard procedures and times
 Used ONLY financial incentives
 Ensured compliance

It resembles Theory X (McGregor, 1960), which follows the thinking that:

 People cannot be trusted as they are –
o Irrational
o Unreliable
o Inherently lazy
and so
 Need to be controlled and motivated by money and threats
If not, people will pursue their own goals which are often in conflict to those of the
(work) organisation.

Whereas Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) considered that:

 People seek independence, self-development and creativity in work
 They can see further than the immediate and are adaptable
 They are moral and responsible and will work for the good of their
organisation.

In 1988, Schein developed the Social Approach, where:

 Behaviour is most influenced by social interactions – at work this determines
identity and belonging (to the organisation).

(Note: these are not academic theories – they haven’t been rigourously tested,
validated etc., so be careful how you attribute in academic work and referencing).

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
Taylorism seems to make sense, but there can be human and even economic costs,
as such a system can only really work in a well-ordered world; i.e. in structured
organisations of a certain nature, such as in large-scale factory production. Later
studies appeared to show that the effects of this management principle caused
negative attitudes towards work and even poor mental health (specifically the
simplified work element). Herzberg’s theory, or job enrichment perspective, also
supports this in that while his hygiene factors (e.g. pay, conditions of employment,
working environment and other extrinsic factors) were not able to cause satisfaction,
could, if not present, lead to dissatisfaction. Whereas his motivators (e.g. job
challenge, recognition, skill use etc.) provided support for satisfaction, motivation and
increased performance.

A further theory to consider is socio-technical systems (Cherns, 1976, 1987; Heller,

1989). Here the integration of technology and social systems in the work place is
considered. It is not uncommon for technologies to be introduced in to an already
complex work-social system without regard for it and which, then, may be disruptive,
if not damaging.
…

Moving away from Taylorism, in recent times job redesign concentrated on:
 Variety (of tasks and skills)
 Autonomy (freedom to choose work methods etc., and even goals)
 Completeness (extent to which the job produces an identifiable end result that
the person can point to).

The above can be achieved in a number of ways:

 Job rotation (rotate through a small set of different tasks)
 Horizontal job enlargement (adding tasks to the person’s job – similar to tasks
already carried out)
 Vertical job enlargement (more decision making responsibilities and/or higher-
level challenges, though does not have to mean an increase in status)
 Semi-autonomous work groups (similar to the above, but with a group, where
the group decides on how best to complete any given task)
 Self-managing teams (normally at a ‘higher’ level than the above, and where
the members have considerable autonomy to complete a task – even to define
the task in the first place).

(Key question: what do the above remind you of from other theories and models, if
anything?)

The above came out of a concern for what can be named quality of working life
(QWL). This in turn led to …

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
(Concerns leading to job redesign: Arnold. J., Randall. R. et al, 2010)

… greater concerns about the quality of jobs and services, including the need for
innovation and customer responsiveness. For example, well-motivated staff are
important for the delivery of outcomes (e.g. Shipton et al, 2006): that job redesign is
integral to a focused business strategy rather than concern for quality of life. Then
again, there remains the question of cost and efficiency in order to compete
effectively. Thus was born ‘just-in-time’ and ‘lean’ production methods: not
necessarily motivating, from a job creation perspective, but organizationally
productive.

Morgeson and Campion (2002) found it possible to introduce elements of ‘scientific

management’, job variety and/or autonomy, in varying degrees which produced
varying levels of benefits for efficiency and satisfaction.

Job Characteristics Model (JCM)

JCM (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980) put forward five core job characteristics:
1. Skill variety (SV): the extent to which a job requires a range of skills
2. Task Identity (TI): the extent to which the job produces a whole, identifiable
outcome
3. Task Significance (TS): the extent to which the job has an impact on other
people, either inside or outside the organisation
4. Autonomy (Au): the extent to which the job allows the job holder to exercise
choice and discretion in their work
5. Feedback from job (Fb): the extent to which the job itself (not the people)
provides information on how well the job holder is performing.
Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model
Source: Adapted from J.R. Hackman and G.R. Oldham (1980))

In the figure (above), it is possible to see which core job characteristics are thought to
affect which critical psychological states that will influence the three outcomes of
motivation, satisfaction and work performance. The model is considered to apply
particularly to those with high growth needs, so thereby increasing intrinsic motivation
and satisfaction (from jobs).

Later studies and observations provided both support and inclusivity for JCM; but the
correlations between job characteristics and motivation and satisfaction may not
have had a causal relationship, which is partly due to there only being few studies in
this area. And it is questioned if the critical psychological states actually mediated
any significant effect on the core job characteristics.

Regardless of the above, JCM still forms the basis of much recent thinking into work
design. Pierce et al (2009) theorized that (the) core job characteristics can lead to a
sense of psychological ownership for the person doing the work: s/he knows the job
‘inside out’, has a feeling of control over the job, and this shapes a clear and positive
sense of identity.

Other thinking about work redesign theory/theories point to the fact that, while useful,
JCM is not wide-ranging enough in the characteristics it considers. Morgeson and
Humphrey (2006; Humphrey et al, 2007) argue that theory should take into account

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
all aspects of jobs in order to provide a sound basis for maintaining and improving
motivation, satisfaction and performance. Specifically:

 JCM focuses on the nature of tasks, but there also needs to be consideration
of the knowledge requirements, and that skill variety (JCM) and task variety
are not the same.
 Work is also a social activity. As such, analysis of a person’s work needs to
include factors like the extent to which they receive social support and
feedback from others, as well as if the work requires interaction and
interdependence with others.
 Context is also important – is a person’s workplace well-designed
(ergonomically), what are the working conditions like (e.g. noise, hazards
etc.)?

In their meta-analysis of work redesign, Humphrey et al (2007) concluded the

following:

1. The five JCM core job characteristics (autonomy, skill variety, task identity,
task significance and feedback from the job) are all strongly associated with
motivation, job satisfaction and organisational commitment, but not necessarily
with performance – suggesting that motivation and performance are not
always strongly linked.
2. The strong links between information processing and job complexity and
satisfaction, suggest that these knowledge components may be significant for
motivation.
3. Social factors are clearly linked to motivation, satisfaction and commitment.
4. All this points to the fact that there is a need to move beyond the core job
characteristics to understand how work influences motivation and other
outcomes.

Fried et al (2007) suggest that at different times in a career work characteristics may
change: for example, it may be that at later stages in a career task significance
becomes ‘more’ important – such as contributing positively to the benefit of others
matters more to them.

Making a positive contribution to the benefit of others is also considered in ‘relational

job design’ (Grant, 2007): people want ‘to make a prosocial difference’. Grant
advocates this through the need for frequent and in-depth contact with beneficiaries,
which will lead to being able to find out more about them, thereby increasing a
person’s perceptions of their impact on beneficiaries and so fostering a sense of
commitment to them. This does reflect with the JCM core job characteristic of task
significance, though could be seen to be much more specific about:

1) The social aspects of it, and

2) The implications for how relationships at work can and should be designed
just as tasks are.

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
Twenty-first century work design

The workplace and how we fit into it is changing, and has been doing so for a
number of decades. It will undoubtedly continue to do so, and this has important
implications for how theorists, researchers, and so employers need to be ready to
think more flexibly about the necessity for adaptability to the changing needs and
requirements of organisations and its major stakeholders – employees.

Parker et al (2001) offer the following observations (some are reflections and have
been previously made, others are new):

 Job characteristics cannot be viewed as fixed until someone decides to

redesign them.
 Features of jobs that effect attitudinal and behavioural outcomes are becoming
more obvious - always previously present but not necessarily seriously
considered. For example, how deeply is a job compatible to home
commitments and lifestyle, and the various cognitive demands it makes (e.g.
problem-solving and vigilance), does a job require emotional labour (i.e.
displays of positive or negative emotions in order to, for example, empathise
with customers).
 Jobs are not only affected by motivational factors, other processes may be
more important in certain given situations – such as a speedy response to
events, do employees have the latitude to use their local knowledge to solve
problems as and when they arise (here, local may refer to geography, but also
include previous learning and experience).
 Job redesign outcomes not only include motivation, satisfaction and
performance, but also such as creativity, innovation, customer satisfaction,
accident rates, absence and turnover. For example, creativity may be
enhanced by periods of ‘mindless’ work as it provides a space to think, and
procrastination may do the same for promoting innovation (Elsbach and
Hargadon, 2006), in that it allows space and time for ideas to ferment bringing
them at some point from creativity to productivity. What such ideas suggest is
that a full (‘enriched’) day may not immediately lead to the positive (profitable)
outcomes organisations are expecting, in the here and now, rather that ideas
need time to sit, that a person, or persons, need ideas to come together over
time to bring about the result required. But they do.
 Factors in JCM do not necessarily cover the range of relations between job
characteristics and outcomes that are necessary to consider.Think about:
 To what degree are jobs within an organisation interdependent
 Is the organisation operating in an ambiguous and/or rapidly changing
environment.
 Clear thinking is vital when redesigning jobs at the individual level, as well as
the group level: considerations of interdependence will likely be an important
factor in such.

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
An elaborated model of work design
Source: Adapted, with permission, from Parker et al. (2001)

Wilkinson (1998) and Wall et al (2002) discuss issues of empowerment (increasing

job control, performance monitoring, cognitive demands and possibly role conflict and
social contact) in the view that those at lower levels of the hierarchy within an
organisation can ‘do’ more if ‘allowed’ to. Another consideration along these lines are
‘high involvement work practices’ (Mohr and Zoghi, 2008): e.g. teamwork,
participation in decision-making and suggestion schemes, which may cause job
characteristic changes, like feedback, task complexity and interdependence, but not
be thought specifically of as job/work redesign. Basically, that the interrelations
between co-workers and/or managers (etc.) fit(s) the task(s) at hand.

Clegg and Spencer (2007), on the back of and reinforcing much of the work of Parker
and colleagues, highlight the need for individuals to have the scope to change the
nature of their work for themselves, particularly if they are thought to be good and
trustworthy performers. They also suggest that having the possibility to gain new
knowledge and experience may have positive consequences on performance.

Beyond this, they also view self-efficacy as a crucial element of the work redesign
process (see figure below). It is either a cause and/or consequence of every element
in the process, except trust; e.g. self-efficacy can be enhanced by changes to job
content, which may lead to improvements in performance through sheer self-belief.
This reflects on trends in goal-setting where self-efficacy is also becoming an
increasingly key factor. The model proposed by Clegg and Spencer is circular, rather
than linear, because they view the process as outcomes feeding into each other – at
different times. One example is that improved work performance is likely to be seen

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
as greater competence, which increases trust, in turn possibly leading to greater
scope for more control and autonomy in their job…and so on.

A new model of the process of job design

Source: Reproduced with permission from Clegg and Spencer (2007), p. 324

This implies that intervention can happen at any time in the work process, and may
not directly involve alteration of job characteristics. An example would be that a well-
designed piece of skills training could increase performance, leading to increases in
perceived competence and trust, and so to changes in job content through job
crafting.

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
References

Arnold, J., Randall, R. et al (2010) Work Psychology: understanding human

behaviour in the workplace, 5th Edition, Edinburgh, UK: Pearson Education Ltd.

Clegg, C. and Spencer, C. (2007) ‘A circular and dynamic model of the process of job
design’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 321-39.

Elsbach, K.D. and Hargadon, A.B. (2006) ‘Enhancing creativity through “mindless”
work: A framework of workday design’, Organization Science, 17, 470-83.

Fried, Y., Grant, A.M., Leiv, A.S., Hadani, M. and Slowik, L. (2007) ‘Job design in
temporal context: a career dynamics perspective’, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 28, 911-27.

Grant, A.M. (2007) ‘Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference’, Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) ‘Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16, 250-79.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007)‚ Integrating motivational,
social and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical
extension of the work design literature’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-56.

McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mohr, R.D. and Zoghi, C. (2008) ‘High-involvement work design and job satisfaction’,
Industrial Labor Relations Review, 61, 275-96.

Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002) ‘Minimizing trade-offs when redesigning
work: Evidence from a longitudinal quasi-experiment’, Personnel Psychology, 55,
589-612.

Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2006) ‘The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure of assessing job design and
the nature of work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 683-729.

Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D. and Cordery, J.L. (2001) ‘Future work design research and
practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design’, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 413-40.

Pierce, J.L., Jussila, I and Cummings, A. (2009) ‘Psychological ownership within the
job design context: revision of the job characteristics model’, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 30, 477-96.

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh
Schein, E.H. (1988) Organizational Psychology, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Taylor, F.W (1911) Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.

Wall, T.D, Cordery, J.L. and Clegg, C.W. (2002) ‘Empowerment, performance and
operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration’, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 51, 146-69.

Wilkinson, A. (1998) ‘Empowerment theory and practice’, Personnel Review, 27, 40-
56.

Introduction to Business Psychology – Motivation through Job Redesign (all); Steve Walsh