One of the most important components of human resources management is job design or work design, where the focus is on the specifications of the job that will satisfy requirements of the organization and the person holding the job. It is one core function of human resources management that cannot be overlooked or skipped, considering how it is an essential tool in ensuring high job satisfaction among workers within an organization, and improve productivity and the overall output.
In the course of the life of an organization, there are changes that are bound to affect how various aspects of management operate. Human resources management is not immune to these effects and, many times, the HRM of an organization has to adapt to the changes. One form of adaptation is through implementing job or work redesigns. Another is through the conduct of various activities and programs that are aimed at job enrichment.
According to a job characteristics model developed by Harvard psychology professor J. Richard Hackman and Tulane University professor Greg R. Oldham, employers can design jobs using key elements to promote motivation and job satisfaction. Providing these key factors will motivate employees to see a job through from the beginning to.
Unfortunately, job redesign is not something that can be done overnight. There are several approaches that may be used, and one of the more popular and most acknowledged approaches is that one developed by J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham, and which was aptly called the âJob Characteristics Modelâ.
In this guide, we explore 1) the job characteristics theory and model and 2) how the job characteristics model can help with job enrichment.
THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY
Hackman and Oldham, both organizational psychologists, developed the job characteristics theory (JCT) and first introduced it in 1976 in the book âOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16, Issue 2â.
According to this theory, âjob design has an effect on motivation, work performance, and job satisfaction.â It has served as a framework for management to identify how certain job characteristics affect the outcomes of the jobs.
In a more personal vein, it studies the various factors that make a specific job satisfying for the organization, and for the person doing the job. Therefore, it describes the relationship between job characteristics and the responses of individuals to work or the job being performed.
The Job Characteristics Theory identified five core job dimensions that prompt three psychological states which, in turn, lead to or have an effect on five work-related outcomes or results. As we move forward with the discussion, we will expound on these further.
Out of this theory, the Job Characteristics Model, which is still in full use today, was also introduced. Basically, this model specifies the conditions under which workers or individuals will be internally motivate to perform their jobs effectively.
THE JOB CHARACTERISTICS MODEL
The Job Characteristics Model was verified when Hackman and Oldham tested it on 658 employees, who are working in 62 different jobs in 7 different businesses or organizations. The results were deemed to be reliable and conclusive, which is the reason why it still holds a lot of weight today, despite the number of other job design theories introduced.
Take a look at the diagram of the Job Characteristics Model, as presented by Hackman and Oldham.
In order to get a full picture of the Job Characteristics Model, we have to go break down its composition: the five core job characteristics or dimensions, the five work-related outcomes, and the three psychological states.
Five Core Job Characteristics
Hackman and Oldham provided clear definitions on the five job dimensions or characteristics.
#1. Skill variety
This refers to the âdegree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, involving the use of a number of different skills and talents of a personâ. Therefore, it follows that the individual will be required to develop a variety of talents and skills.
This area asks the number of skills and talents that the job requires of the person that will be working on it. A quick giveaway would be to assess whether the job is monotonous and repetitive or if it asks the worker to do a number of different tasks or actions.
Compare two individuals working two different jobs. Job A is pretty much elementary, with the tasks being performed in a routine and repetitive manner. It does not demand much skill or ability. Job B, on the other hand, is quite complex, requiring that the worker be in possession of several skills or abilities. Who, between the two workers, will have greater chances of experiencing meaningfulness in their jobs?
Thatâs correct. Itâs the one working on Job B, since it requires variety in skills.
#2. Task identity
This is the âdegree to which the job requires completion of a whole, identifiable piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to end with visible outcomeâ. This involves being able to work on an entire work process, rather than just on bits and pieces of it. Therefore, it is important to assess whether the job or task has a clearly defined beginning, middle and end.
Workers tend to find more meaning in their jobs when they can identify a complete and visible outcome at the end of the day, or of a work cycle. Let us say, for example, that two workers are involved in the same work process. Worker A is responsible for only a small part of the work, probably in the first phase. Worker B, on the other hand, is involved throughout the entire process.
Between the two, Worker B is more likely to find his job meaningful, because he can see a visible outcome, and he feels more involved in the completion of the process. For him, a job that he is able to complete, from beginning to end, seems more worthwhile, than simply working on Phase 1, then not having a hand on the rest of the process. In fact, he may not even be aware whether the process has been completed or not, because he is focused on his assigned phase of the process.
#3. Task significance
Task significance is said to be the âdegree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those people are in the immediate organization or in the world at largeâ. The task â and the job â is significant if it can affect other peopleâs lives. And it should not just be the people within the organization, but even those outside.
For many, a job holds more meaning if it can help improve the well-being of other people (not just himself), whether physically, psychologically, or emotionally. Knowing that their job, and their performance thereof, has the capacity to have a positive impact on others will motivate them further to do better.
Individuals who put great stock on task significance are very keen on finding out whether the job that they are doing actually matters to other people. For them, meaning comes in the form of recognition by other people.
#4. Autonomy
This pertains to the âdegree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedure to be used in carrying it outâ.
Autonomy is often seen in positions with managerial, supervisorial and ministerial functions. Examples of jobs with high levels of autonomy are managers, team leaders, supervising officers, division and department heads, and senior management. These jobs tend to become more meaningful to the ones performing them because they feel greater personal responsibility for their own actions on the job.
But itâs not just limited to people in managerial positions. Even workers have a strong sense of personal responsibility if they are left to perform their tasks using their own efforts and initiatives, and they are allowed to make the decisions and call the shots.
They will definitely feel less of this autonomy if they are made to meekly follow the instructions of a supervisor, or adhere strictly to what a job procedures manual provides. This will not help them feel responsible for their actions at all.
#5. Feedback
Job feedback refers to the
âdegree to which carrying out the work activities required by the job provides the individual with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performanceâ.
As much as possible, workers would like to be kept in the loop on their performance of the job. Not only will this keep them apprised of their progress as workers, it is also one way for them to boost their self-esteem. If they are told by their supervisors or managers that they are going a good job, they are likely to feel motivated to continue with how they are doing so far. In contrast, if they are told that they are not performing as expected, then they will respond accordingly and improve their performance.
If all five characteristics are lumped or combined together, we will be able to come up with a single figure or index that will act as the indicator of the overall motivating potential of the job being evaluated or redesigned. This index will essentially show the possibility or likelihood of a job affecting the attitudes and behaviors of the employee or worker.
This figure or index is called the MPS, or the âmotivating potential scoreâ.
Using all five core job characteristics, the formula for the MPS is:
MPS = (Skill variety + Task identity + Task significance)/3 X Autonomy X Feedback
The following propositions can be gleaned from the formula:
- If all five core job characteristics are high, there is a high probability that the worker will experience the three psychological states. This will naturally result to positive outcomes.
- In order for a job to be considered to have high motivating potential, at least one among Skill Variety, Task Identity and Task Significance) should also be high. However, it is a given that the job should also be high on both Autonomy and Feedback. A low score on any of the two will pull the MPS down.
- A low score on any one of the three does not automatically mean that the job will have a low motivating potential, since it could be offset by a high score on any of the other two.
Three Critical Psychological States
According to Faturochman, the only way for the desirable outcomes to appear or materialize is for the individual to experience all three psychological states, and the only way to experience these states, is to possess the core job characteristics.
Hackman and Oldham also mentioned motivation, which will definitely be high among individuals who are able to experience these psychological states.
Psychological State 1. Experience meaningfulness of work
Individuals have to feel that, when they are working, they are doing something meaningful. They feel that their work, in and of itself, is meaningful. This means that they have to feel that what they are doing is generally worthwhile or of value. It should also hold some importance or significance, especially with respect to a system or a set of values that the individual, on a personal level, believes in or accepts.
Looking at the diagram of the model, we can easily see that there is a connection between meaningfulness of work and the first three core job characteristics. In short, a worker will be able to find more meaning in his job if skill variety, task identity and task significance are present.
Meaningfulness of work and Skill Variety:
Not only should the job require a variety of skills and talents; it should also have the appropriate number of skills and talents, and the appropriate skills and talents.
Basically, requiring too many skills and talents may make the job too overwhelming and complex, so the worker will have difficulty keeping up with it. On the other hand, a job that requires too little skills and talents may make it too boring and not challenging at all.
In the same vein, the skills and talents should be a fit for the job itself. There would be no point requiring a skill or talent that will not contribute to the accomplishment of a task.
Take, for example, the job of a chauffeur. Driving is the most basic skill required of him, but in many organizations, they may also require the driver to have mechanical troubleshooting skills and a talent for making conversation, especially when the nature of their job requires them to drive guests and visitors around the city.
Meaningfulness of work and Task Identity:
The worker will feel more pride in their work when they are able to identify it wholly and completely.
Another example given in several write-ups is the manufacture of a washing machine. In the assembly line of a washing machine manufacturing company, there is one worker whose only task is to add one nut to one bolt, in the exact same spot. If he has to do this one thing repetitively, throughout a six- to eight-hour shift, he will be less motivated than, say, another worker who is in charge of attaching the drum and other parts.
Meaningfulness of work and Task Significance:
Say, for example, that an employee is tasked to create project proposals, with the knowledge that these proposals are likely to be approved and implemented, and will result to the companyâs earnings increasing and, as a result, everyoneâs bonuses also going up.
Task significance is going to be high, because the employee is aware that the results of his job will benefit not only himself, but other employees of the company as well. He will therefore find his job more meaningful and will be more motivated to come up with excellent project proposals.
Psychological State 2. Experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work
We are not talking here of just about any type of responsibility. In the context of the JCM, we are speaking of personal responsibility. The individual has to feel personally accountable for the outcomes or results of his work, or the tasks that he is doing.
Freedom and autonomy is given in the performance of oneâs job. The worker will then use this freedom of action to make decisions on how to perform the job, such as making changes in the process, deciding on scheduling, and applying certain principles that he deems appropriate and beneficial to the accomplishment of the task.
However, together with this freedom and autonomy is a sense of responsibility. Depending on the decisions made by the worker, he or she will be responsible for the results, whether it is a success or a failure.
Psychological State 3. Knowledge of the actual results or outcomes
It is a given that knowing the results or outcomes of your job will help you track or monitor your effectiveness in your job. It will also help you evaluate your job performance better.
Having knowledge of the outcomes is important because:
- It will ensure that the worker is fully aware of the success (or failure) of his work and, in the process, allow them to learn from his mistakes.
- It will allow the worker to connect, on an emotional level, with the customers or end users of their outputs. Consequently, this will let them find more meaning in their work.
Now let us take these three psychological states and relate them with the core job characteristics.
The first three core job characteristics â skill variety, task identity and task significance â have a direct impact on the individual workerâs experienced meaningfulness of work.
Meanwhile, the amount of autonomy he enjoys will have an effect on the individualâs experienced responsibility towards work outcomes or results. The fifth core job characteristic â feedback â leads to the individual gaining knowledge of the actual results of the work-related activities of the job.
Work-Related Outcomes
Originally, the proponents of the JCT proposed five possible work-related outcomes.
- Internal Work Motivation: An employee may derive motivation to perform his work from external sources. However, the best type of motivation would still be intrinsic motivation, which comes internally, or naturally in a worker.
- Job Satisfaction: The simple definition of job satisfaction is the level of contentment of an employee with his or her job. Hulin and Judge, however, gave a more complex definition, referring to it as a multi-dimensional psychological response to oneâs job, and these responses could either be cognitive, affective or behavioral.
- Performance Quality: This outcome focuses on the overall quality of how the work was performed. Was it effective? Was it efficient? Were the targets achieved? Were the standards of quality adhered to?
- Absenteeism: A highly motivated worker will definitely register low absenteeism. Usually, workers who are bored with their work, or not challenged at all, will not have the enthusiasm that pushes them to get up each morning to go to work. They will not look forward to the work day ahead and, as a result, are more than likely to just not go to work altogether. Of course, it goes without saying that absenteeism is one of the primary reasons for low productivity.
- Turnover: In any case, a company that registers a high turnover rate in personnel means that there are problems on how its human resources are managed. It could be that the poor job design does not motivate workers to stay long with the company. Thus, they will look for other jobs in other companies or industries.
High turnover also means ultimately higher costs and inefficiencies for an organization. It means they have to frequently recruit and hire people and train the ones that are hired. After a few months, after the employees leave and new ones are hired, another round of training will take place. This will definitely mean more training costs to the company, not to mention severance packages for those who left.
In 1980, however, a revision of the theory and model had the number of outcomes going from five to four. Absenteeism and turnover are removed, and performance quality is broken down into two:
- Quality of Work: How is the work performed? Are the standards of quality set by the company met?
- Quantity of Work: How much of the work was performed? Was the worker able to complete the expected amount of work within the time allotted, without compromising on quality?
The heart of the Job Characteristics Model entails designing (or redesigning) the job in a manner where the core job characteristics are a perfect and complementary fit to the individualâs or workerâs psychological state and, in the process, lead to the achievement of positive and desired outcomes or results.
Moderators
The theory is not all cut and dried, however, because even the brains behind the JCT recognized that there will be varying responses to jobs that are deemed to have high motivating potential. In short, some employees may respond positively, but there may also be those who would not be affected in the same way.
They addressed this gray area by pointing out that there are inherent traits or characteristics among individuals that will help bridge that divide often seen between the job characteristics and the psychological states. They called these the âmoderatorsâ.
1. Knowledge and skills needed to perform the work or task required in the job
The moderator is the level of knowledge and skill that the individual possesses, relevant to the job. Individuals who possess the skills, knowledge and competence in their performance of their job are more likely to feel positively towards their job and, in turn, this will pave the way for obtaining good or better results.
In contrast, if the person performing the job has insufficient knowledge and skill towards the job, there is a low chance of him experiencing the psychological states. He can also expect less than stellar, and even negative, results or outcomes.
2. Growth need strength
According to the theory, Growth Need Strength (GNS) moderates the relationship between core job characteristics and the psychological states. At the same time, it also moderates the relationship between the psychological states and the possible results or outcomes.
This answers the following questions:
- How strongly does the individual want to accomplish something?
- How much does the individual hunger for personal learning and development?
âGrowth need strengthâ is defined as the degree to which people have a need for personal growth and development. Individuals who are âhungrierâ, or those who have high growth need strength, are more likely to have a more enthusiastic response to various opportunities that come their way. They have a greater thirst for personal accomplishment, and they will see the job as an excellent tool for learning and development.
3. âContextâ satisfaction
The context we are talking about here is âwork contextâ or âjob contextâ, and they often include job security, pay or compensation, the co-workers, and the managers. It means that individuals may be motivated by internal aspects, but that does not mean they completely ignore the external ones.
Individuals are also inclined to respond positively if they are satisfied by the contextual factors mentioned. For example, if they feel that they are being paid an amount commensurate to their job, then they will be more motivated to perform better. If they are satisfied with the quality of leadership that the supervisor is demonstrating, then they are also likely to improve their performance at work as part of the team.
The rule of thumb is that, the higher the moderator levels are, the higher will also be the likelihood of the three psychological states to be experienced by the individual.
Individuals that exhibit high levels in the moderator variables (knowledge and skills, growth need strength and work context satisfaction) are more likely to have a more positive response in their experience of the psychological outcomes. This also means that they can expect better outcomes or results.
HOW THE JCM CAN HELP JOB ENRICHMENT
Application of the Job Characteristics Theory and model will enable the company to design jobs better and, in many cases, redesign existing jobs. The most common actions derived from the application of the theory are:
Enforcing job rotation
Add variety and challenge by encouraging job rotation. There is a lower possibility of workers being bored of what they are doing, since they will not be stuck with their job for years on end.
They will also get to have a bigger glimpse of the work that is being done by the company, instead of being solely focused on their own tasks.
Varying assigned work and combining tasks
In order to enable skill variety, the jobs may be redesigned to require skills and talents that are varied instead of being monotonous and repetitive. By combining different tasks in a job, you will also be enhancing task identity and task significance.
Delegation of tasks to the lowest possible level
While there are advantages to centralization (e.g. more control, easier monitoring), decentralization is still widely preferred. If tasks are delegated to the lowest possible level, this will encourage autonomy even among the rank-and-file. This vertical loading or distribution of jobs will, in turn, create a deeper sense of responsibility among all employees for the outcomes of their work.
Assigning work to groups or teams
Not only will this encourage teamwork and cooperation within the organization, it will also encourage the wholeness of the output of the processes of the company. Being able to see the whole process or the bigger picture is one way to enforce task identity among the workers. When assigning tasks to teams, make sure that the teams are identifiable, specifically with the type of work they do. Team identity must be kept clear and strong to begin with.
Encourage the sharing of ideas
Ask for the ideas of other workers and encourage them to share their opinions and suggestions. The team â the organization, as a whole â is working towards a common goal, so it is only right to get everyone involved.
Set effective performance evaluation and rewards systems in place
Motivate employees by putting in place systems to evaluate performance and give rewards. When evaluating performance and setting rewards,
- Set performance standards high, but still attainable. This will encourage employees to perform better than average.
- Measure performance objectively. There should be a system that can measure performance effectively and objectively.
- Provide incentives for executives, employees, and groups. Some examples of incentives are pay raises, bonuses, additional compensation packages, profit sharing, and stock options, to name a few.
Connect the employees or workers with the customers or end users
This will allow the workers to know firsthand what the end users think or feel about the output of their work. This feedback mechanism has proven to be one of the most effective, since the workers are directly connecting to those that they are serving or catering to.
Job characteristics theory is a theory of work design. It provides âa set of implementing principles for enriching jobs in organizational settingsâ.[1] The original version of job characteristics theory proposed a model of five âcoreâ job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback) that affect five work-related outcomes (i.e. motivation, satisfaction, performance, and absenteeism and turnover) through three psychological states (i.e. experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results).[2]
- 2Important variables
- 3Propositions
- 4Alternative theories of work design
- 5Variations
History[edit]
Work redesign first got its start in the 1960s. Up until then, the prevailing attitude was that jobs should be simplified in order to maximize production, however it was found that when subjected to highly routinized and repetitive tasks, the benefits of simplification sometimes disappeared due to worker dissatisfaction. It was proposed that jobs should be enriched in ways that boosted motivation, instead of just simplified to a string of repetitive tasks.[3] It is from this viewpoint that Job Characteristics Theory emerged.
In 1975, Greg R. Oldham[4] and J. Richard Hackman[5] constructed the original version of the Job Characteristics Theory (JCT), which is based on earlier work by Turner and Lawrence[6] and Hackman and Lawler.[7] Turner and Lawrence,[6] provided a foundation of objective characteristics of jobs in work design. Further, Hackman and Lawler[7] indicated the direct effect of job characteristics on employee's work related attitudes and behaviors and, more importantly, the individual differences in need for development, which is called Growth Need Strength in Job Characteristics Theory.
In 1980, Hackman and Oldham presented the final form of the Job Characteristics Theory in their book Work Redesign. The main changes included the addition of two more moderators- Knowledge and Skill and Context Satisfaction, removal of the work outcomes of absenteeism and turnover, and increased focus on Internal Work Motivation. Several of the outcome variables were removed or renamed as well. Concentration was shifted to the affective outcomes following results from empirical studies that showed weak support for the relationship between the psychological states and behavioral outcomes.[1][8][9]
In addition to the theory, Oldham and Hackman also created two instruments, the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) and the Job Rating Form (JRF), for assessing constructs of the theory.[2][10] The JDS directly measures jobholders' perceptions of the five core job characteristics, their experienced psychological states, their Growth Need Strength, and outcomes. The JRF was designed to obtain the assessments from external observers, such as supervisors or researchers, of the core job characteristics.[2]
Important variables[edit]
According to the final version of the theory, five core job characteristics should prompt three critical psychological states, which lead to many favorable personal and work outcomes. The moderators Growth Need Strength, Knowledge and Skill, and Context Satisfaction should moderate the links between the job characteristics and the psychological states, and the psychological states and the outcomes.[10]
Core job characteristics[edit]
- Skill Variety: The degree to which a job requires various activities, requiring the worker to develop a variety of skills and talents. Jobholders can experience more meaningfulness in jobs that require several different skills and abilities than when the jobs are elementary and routine.[2]
- Task Identity: The degree to which the job requires the jobholders to identify and complete a workpiece with a visible outcome. Workers experience more meaningfulness in a job when they are involved in the entire process rather than just being responsible for a part of the work.[2]
- Task Significance: The degree to which the job affects other people's lives. The influence can be either in the immediate organization or in the external environment. Employees feel more meaningfulness in a job that substantially improves either psychological or physical well-being of others than a job that has limited effect on anyone else.[2]
- Autonomy: The degree to which the job provides the employee with significant freedom, independence, and discretion to plan out the work and determine the procedures in the job. For jobs with a high level of autonomy, the outcomes of the work depend on the workersâ own efforts, initiatives, and decisions; rather than on the instructions from a manager or a manual of job procedures. In such cases, the jobholders experience greater personal responsibility for their own successes and failures at work.[2]
- Feedback: The degree to which the worker has knowledge of results. This is clear, specific, detailed, actionable information about the effectiveness of his or her job performance. When workers receive clear, actionable information about their work performance, they have better overall knowledge of the effect of their work activities, and what specific actions they need to take (if any) to improve their productivity.[2][11]
Critical psychological states[edit]
- Experienced Meaningfulness of the Work: The degree to which the jobholder experiences the work as intrinsically meaningful and can present his or her value to other people and/or the external environment.[2]
- Experienced Responsibility for Outcome of the Work: The degree to which the worker feels he or she is accountable and responsible for the results of the work.[2]
- Knowledge of Results of the Work Activities: The degree to which the jobholder knows how well he or she is performing.[2]
Outcomes[edit]
Adopted from earlier work[12][13][14] the personal and work outcomes of the initial theory were: Internal Work Motivation, Job Satisfaction, Absenteeism and Turnover, and Performance Quality. However, the 1980 revisions to the original model included removing absenteeism and turnover, and breaking performance into Quality of Work and Quantity of Work.
Moderators[edit]
- Growth Need Strength (GNS): GNS is the strength of a person's need for personal accomplishment, learning, and developmentâ.[1] The theory posits that Growth Need Strength moderates both the relationship of core job characteristics and psychological states, and the relationship between psychological states and outcomes.[2]
- Knowledge and Skill: The level of knowledge and skill the worker possesses can moderate the relationship between the mediators and the job characteristics and outcomes. For motivating jobs, adequate knowledge and skill lead to experiencing the critical psychological states and better outcomes, while insufficient knowledge and skill discourage the psychological states and result in more negative outcomes. Unmotivating jobs don't allow the worker to experience the psychological states at all, thus knowledge and skill have no effect.[15]
- Context Satisfaction: The context of the job also affects employeesâ experience. The authors suggest that when workers are satisfied with things like their managers, pay, co-workers, and job security they respond more positively to highly motivating jobs and less positively when they are not satisfied. The reason being that they must use attentional resources to handle the undesirable work context, which distracts from the richness otherwise inherent in the job.[15]
Propositions[edit]
The three critical psychological states of job characteristic theory (JCT) draw upon cognitive motivation theory and some previous work on identifying the presence of certain psychological states could lead to favorable outcomes.[16][17][18] JCT provided the chance to systematically assessed the relationship between the previously discovered psychological states ('Experienced Meaningfulness, 'Experienced Responsibility, and Knowledge of Results) and outcomes. More importantly, previous work on work design showed job characteristics can predict individual performance, but did not provide âwhyâ and âhowâ this relationship existed. Job Characteristics Theory filled this gap by building a bridge between job characteristics and work-related outcomes through the use of the three critical psychological states.
The three psychological states, which are also the conceptual core of the theory, include (1) Experienced Meaningfulness of the Work, (2) Experienced Responsibility for the Outcomes of the Work, and (3) Knowledge of the Results of Work Activities. These psychological states are theorized to mediate the relationship between job characteristics and work-related outcomes. According to the theory, these three critical psychological states are noncompensatory conditions, meaning jobholders have to experience all three critical psychological states to achieve the outcomes proposed in the model.[19] For example, when workers experience the three psychological states, they feel good about themselves when they perform well. These positive feelings, in turn, reinforce the workers to keep performing well.[1]
According to the theory, certain core job characteristics are responsible for each psychological state: skill variety, task identity, and task significance shape the experienced meaningfulness; autonomy affects experienced responsibility, and feedback contributes to the knowledge of results. Previous research found that four job characteristics (autonomy, variety, identity, and feedback) could increase workersâ performance, satisfaction, and attendance.[6][7] Task significance was derived from Greg Oldham's own work experience as an assembly line worker. Though his job did not provide task variety or identity, he still experienced meaningfulness through the realization that others depended on his work. This realization led to the inclusion of task significance as another job characteristic that would influence experienced meaningfulness of the job. Thus, job characteristics theory proposed the five core job characteristics that could predict work related outcomes.[1]
![Job characteristics model definition Job characteristics model definition](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZAzvJ0Y10Fg/UYCGY-t2DAI/AAAAAAAAAyk/_pm7wQ7qItM/s320/Job+Characteristics+Model.jpg)
Motivating potential score[edit]
When a job has a high score on the five core characteristics, it is likely to generate three psychological states, which can lead to positive work outcomes, such as high internal work motivation, high satisfaction with the work, high quality work performance, and low absenteeism and turnover. This tendency for high levels of job characteristics to lead to positive outcomes can be formulated by the motivating potential score (MPS). Hackman and Oldham explained that the MPS is an index of the âdegree to which a job has an overall high standing on the person's degree of motivation...and, therefore, is likely to prompt favorable personal and work outcomesâ:
The motivating potential score (MPS) can be calculated, using the core dimensions discussed above, as follows:
- MPS=Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance 3 x Autonomy x Feedback{displaystyle {text{MPS}}={frac {text{Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task Significance }}{text{3}}}{text{ x Autonomy x Feedback}}}
Jobs that are high in motivating potential must be also high on at least one of the three factors that lead to experienced meaningfulness, and also must be high on both Autonomy and Feedback.[20] If a job has a high MPS, the job characteristics model predicts that motivation, performance and job satisfaction will be positively affected and the likelihood of negative outcomes, such as absenteeism and turnover, will be reduced.[20]
According to the equation above, a low standing on either autonomy or feedback will substantially compromise a job's MPS, because autonomy and feedback are the only job characteristics expected to foster experienced responsibility and knowledge of results, respectively. On the contrary, a low score on one of the three job characteristics that lead to experienced meaningfulness may not necessarily reduce a job's MPS, because a strong presence of one of those three attributes can offset the absence of the others.[1]
Individual difference factor[edit]
In response to one of the disadvantages of MotivatorâHygiene Theory,[21] Job Characteristics Theory added an individual difference factor into the model. While Herzberg et al. took into account the importance of intrinsically and extrinsically motivating job characteristics there was no consideration of individual differences.[19] The importance of individual differences had been demonstrated by previous work showing that some individuals are more likely to positively respond to an enriched job environment than others.[22] Thus, the original version of the theory posits an individual difference characteristic, Growth Need Strength (GNS), that moderates the effect of the core job characteristics on outcomes. Jobholders with high Growth Need Strength should respond more positively to the opportunities provided by jobs with high levels of the five core characteristics compared to low GNS jobholders.[2]
Alternative theories of work design[edit]
Scientific management[edit]
Taylor's[23] theory of scientific management emphasized efficiency and productivity through the simplification of tasks and division of labor.
Motivatorâhygiene theory[edit]
Herzberg et al.âs[21] MotivatorâHygiene Theory, aka Two-factor Theory, an influence on Job Characteristics Theory, sought to increase motivation and satisfaction through enriching jobs.The theory predicts changes in âmotivatorsâ, which are intrinsic to the work, (such as recognition, advancement, and achievement) will lead to higher levels of employee motivation and satisfaction; while âhygiene factorsâ, which are extrinsic to the work itself, (such as company policies and salary) can lead to lower levels of dissatisfaction, but will not actually effect satisfaction or motivation.
Sociotechnical systems theory[edit]
Sociotechnical systems theory[24] predicts an increase in satisfaction and productivity through designing work that optimized person-technology interactions.
![Job Characteristics Model Job Characteristics Model](http://vskills.in/certification/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/job-characteristics-model.gif)
Quality improvement theory[edit]
Quality improvement theory[25][26][27] is based on the idea that jobs can be improved through the analysis and optimized of work processes.
Adaptive structuration theory[edit]
Adaptive structuration theory[28] provides a way to look at the interaction between technology's intended and actual use in an organization, and how it can influence different work-related outcomes.
Variations[edit]
Reverse scoring correction[edit]
Idaszak and Drasgow[29] provided a corrected version of the Job Diagnostic Survey that corrected for one of the measurement errors in the instrument. It had been suggested that reverse scoring on several of the questions was to blame for the inconsistent studies looking at the factors involved in the Job Diagnostic Survey.[30] Following a factor analysis, Idaszak and Drasgow found six factors rather than the theorized five characteristics proposed by the Job Characteristics Theory. Upon further investigation, they were able to show that the sixth factor was made up of the reverse coded items. The authors rephrased the questions, ran the analysis again, and found it removed the measurement error.[29]
GNâGO model[edit]
Due to the inconsistent findings about the validity of Growth Need Strength as a moderator of the Job characteristic-outcomes relationship, Graen, Scandura, and Graen[31] proposed the GNâGO model, which added Growth Opportunity as another moderator. They suggested there isn't a simple positive relationship between motivation and Growth Need Strength, but instead there is an underlying incremental (stairstep) relationship with various levels of Growth Opportunity. Growth Opportunity increments are described as âevents that change either the characteristics of the job itself or the understanding of the job itselfâ.[31] It was hypothesized that as people high in Growth Need Strength met each level of Growth Opportunity they could be motivated to increase their performance, but when people low on Growth Need Strength met these same increments their performance would either maintain or degrade. Field studies found more support for the GNâGO model than the original Growth Need Strength moderation.[31][32]
Extension of characteristics and outcomes[edit]
Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson[33] extended the original model by incorporating many different outcomes and job characteristics. The authors divided the revised set of Job Characteristics into three sections- Motivational, Social, and Work Context Characteristics; and the outcomes were portioned out into four parts- Behavioral, Attitudinal, Role Perception, and Well-being Outcomes. Results showed strong relationships between some of the expanded characteristics and outcomes, suggesting that there are more options for enriching jobs than the original theory would suggest.[33]
Psychological ownership[edit]
Taking from earlier empirical research on Job Characteristics Theory and Psychological Ownership, researchers developed a model that combined the two theories.[34] They replaced the psychological states of the Job Characteristics Theory with Psychological Ownership of the job as the mediator between job characteristics and outcomes. In addition to the positive personal and work outcomes of Job Characteristics Theory, negative outcomes (e.g. Territorial Behaviors, Resistance to Change, and Burden of Responsibility) were added.[34]
Empirical tests[edit]
Since its inception, Job Characteristics Theory has been scrutinized extensively.[1] The first empirical tests of the theory came from Hackman and Oldham themselves. The authors found the âinternal consistency reliability of the scales and the discriminant validity of the itemsâ to be âsatisfactoryâ.[2] They also tried to assess the objectivity of the measure by having the supervisors and the researchers evaluate the job in addition to the jobholders. More importantly, the authors reported the relationships predicted by the model were supported by their analysis.[2][19]
Following these publications, over 200 empirical articles were published examining Job Characteristics Theory over the next decade.[35] Fried and Ferris[35] summarized the research on Job Characteristics Theory and found âmodest supportâ overall. Fried and Ferris[35] mentioned seven general areas of criticism in their review, which are discussed below:
- Relation of objective and perceived job characteristics: Whether or not there is accuracy in the worker's perceptions of job characteristics is an important topic of concern for Job Characteristics Theory. Inaccurate ratings of the five job characteristics can be detrimental to the job enrichment process because the Job Diagnostic Survey, which is instrumental in determining what enrichment needs to take place, relies on jobholders' perceptions.[35]
- Influential forces on job perceptions: Social cues, personal factors, and what order the portions of the Job Diagnostic Survey is given can influence job perceptions.[36][37][38] These âirrelevant cuesâ could color one's perception of the job characteristics.[35]
- Perceived versus objective job characteristics-outcomes relationships: Researchers have also been concerned about the objectivity of jobholdersâ assessment of job characteristics and work outcomes, however studies have tended to show that this fear is largely unfounded.[39][40]
- Factors of the Job Diagnostic Survey: The support for the five dimensions of job characteristics in Job Characteristics Theory have mixed support among the studies examining the factor solutions of the Job Diagnostic Survey.[41][42]
- The job characteristics-outcomes relationships: Researchers have argued job characteristics have a stronger relationship with personal outcomes, than with work outcomes.[33] More importantly, it was found that the Motivating Potential Score was not as predictive as adding up rater's assessment of the five job characteristics.[1][35]
- Mediator effects of critical psychological states: Researchers have found support for the mediating role of psychological states between job characteristics and personal outcomes, but didn't find similar evidence for the mediation on work outcomes.[33][43][44][45]
- Growth Need Strength's use as a moderator: There have been several studies investigating the validity of Growth Need Strength as a moderator. Many of the studies reported the moderating effect of Growth Need Strength to be low.[31][43][46]
New developments[edit]
Over the years since Job Characteristics Theory's introduction into the organizational literature, there have been many changes to the field and to work itself. Oldham and Hackman suggest that the areas more fruitful for development in work design are social motivation, job crafting, and teams.[3]
Social sources of motivation are becoming more important due to the changing nature of work in this country. More jobs are requiring higher levels of client-employee interaction, as well as increasing interdependence among employees. With this in mind, it would make sense to investigate the effect the social aspects have on affective and behavioral outcomes.[3]
While Job Characteristics Theory was mainly focused on the organization's responsibility for manipulating job characteristics to enrich jobs there has been a considerable buzz in the literature regarding job crafting. In job crafting the employee has some control over their role in the organization. Hackman and Oldham point out there are many avenues of inquiry regarding job crafting such as: what are the benefits of job crafting, are the benefits due to the job crafting process itself or the actual changes made to the job, and what are the negative effects of job crafting?[3]
Finally, they brought up the potential research directions relevant to team work design. Specifically, they discuss the need to understand when to use work-design aimed at the individual or team level in order to increase performance, and what type of team is best suited to particular tasks.[3]
Practical implications[edit]
Job Characteristics Theory is firmly entrenched within the work design (also called job enrichment) literature, moreover the theory has become one of the most cited in all of the organizational behavior field.[1][19] In practical terms, Job Characteristics Theory provides a framework for increasing employeesâ motivation, satisfaction, and performance through enriching job characteristics.
Job Characteristics Theory has been embraced by researchers and used in a multitude of professions and organizations.[1] In the applied domain, Hackman and Oldham have reported that a number of consulting firms have employed their model or modified it to meet their needs.[1]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ abcdefghijkHackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (2005). How job characteristics theory happened. The Oxford handbook of management theory: The process of theory development, 151-170.
- ^ abcdefghijklmnoHackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
- ^ abcdeOldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010) Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 463-479.
- ^http://business.tulane.edu/faculty/[email protected]
- ^http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~hackman/Archived 2013-09-25 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ abcTurner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration.
- ^ abcHackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55(3), 259-286.
- ^Cleave, S. (1993). A test of the job characteristics model with administrative positions in physical education and sport. Journal of Sport Management, 7(3), 228-242.
- ^Rungtusanatham, M., & Anderson, J. C. (1996). A clarification on conceptual and methodological issues related to the job characteristics model. Journal of Operations Management, 14(4), 357-367.
- ^ abHackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign,(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).
- ^Katz, Ralph. Motivating Technical Professionals Today. IEEE Engineering Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, March 2013, pp. 28-38
- ^Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- ^Walker, C. R., and Guest, C. H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- ^Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259.
- ^ abKulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). Work design as an approach to person-environment fit. Journal of vocational behavior, 31(3), 278-296.
- ^Argryis, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.
- ^Lawler, E. E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology, 22, 426-435.
- ^Porter L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
- ^ abcdHackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
- ^ abSteel, Piers. Motivation: Theory and Applied. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2012. Print. pp. 49
- ^ abHerzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. Wiley. New York.
- ^Hulin, C. L. (1971). Individual differences and job enrichment: The case against general treatments. New perspectives in job enrichment, 159-191.
- ^Taylor, F. W. (1911). Shop management. Harper & brothers.
- ^Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of long-wall methods of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3â38.
- ^Shewhart, W. A. (1931). The economic control of manufactured products. New York: Van Nostrand.
- ^Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study
- ^Juran, J. M. (1974). Quality control handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- ^DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5 (2), 121â147.
- ^ abIdaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 69.
- ^Harvey, R. J., Billings, R. S., & Nilan, K. J. (1985). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job Diagnostic Survey: Good news and bad news. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 461.
- ^ abcdGraen, G. B., Scandura, T. A., & Graen, M. R. (1986). A field experimental test of the moderating effects of growth need strength on productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 484.
- ^Medcof, J. W. (1991). A test of a revision of the job characteristics model. Applied Psychology, 40(4), 381-393.
- ^ abcdHumphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & 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(5), 1332.
- ^ abPierce, J. L., Jussila, I., & Cummings, A. (2009). Psychological ownership within the job design context: Revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 477-496.
- ^ abcdefFried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and metaâanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287-322.
- ^Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 427-456.
- ^Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and job design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
- ^O'Reilly, C. A., Parlette, G. N., & Bloom, J. R. (1980). Perceptual measures of task characteristics: The biasing effects of differing frames of reference and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 23(1), 118-131.
- ^Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1991). Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources with employee affect, absence, turnover intentions, and health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 46.
- ^Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 395.
- ^Champoux, J. E. (1978). A preliminary examination of some complex job scope-growth need strength interactions. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 38, 59-63.
- ^Wall, T. D., Clegg, C. W., & Jackson, P. R. (1978). An evaluation of the job characteristics model. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51(2), 183-196.
- ^ abArnold, H. J., & House, R. J. (1980). Methodological and substantive extensions to the job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 161-183.
- ^Renn, R. W., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1995). The critical psychological states: An underrepresented component in job characteristics model research. Journal of Management, 21(2), 279-303.
- ^Behson, S. J., Eddy, E. R., & Lorenzet, S. J. (2000). The importance of the critical psychological states in the job characteristics model: A meta-analytic and structural equations modeling examination. Current research in social psychology, 5, 170-189.
- ^Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and extension of the job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 354-381.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Job_characteristic_theory&oldid=898164190'