|
...offer ideas and insights. We consider time lags in the model as well as some of the contingencies affecting its application. We argue that this approach opens up new opportunities for job design theory, research and practice.
Many companies are introducing new technologies, new business processes and new ways of working (Holman, Wall, Clegg, Sparrow, & Howard, 2003). Particular initiatives such as call centre operations, e-business working, supply-chain partnerships, enterprise resource planning systems, dispersed teams, just-in-time working and the like, involve choices (whether made explicitly or implicitly) about the design of people's jobs. We believe that job design remains as significant a practical issue as ever it has been. Yet, at the same time, one could argue that the theory underlying mainstream job design thinking and practice has become rather set in its ways, if not to say moribund.
The job characteristics model offered by Hackman and Oldham (1976) remains, 30 years later, the dominant perspective in job design theory. The core proposition is that job characteristics (or job content) influence the motivation of the job-holder, which, in turn, has an effect on his/her performance and well-being. We believe that mainstream job design theoretical thinking can be characterized in a number of ways, which are summarized below:
* Job design is usually treated as a predictor variable (and only rarely as an outcome).
* Job designs are usually treated as if they are relatively fixed, at least in the short term, and common across individuals in the same job in the same organization. Furthermore, job redesign, when undertaken, is usually seen as a formal and deliberate attempt on the part of the organization to redefine who does what.
* The underlying explanatory model is largely motivational.
* The model is largely individualistic, focusing on the job-holder, often ignoring the roles and actions of other key actors in the job design process.
* Job performance is treated as an outcome variable.
* The core model is unidirectional in its causal logic (such that X influences Y which in turn influences Z).
(For examples of reviews that draw attention to aspects of the above, see Oldham, 1996; Parker & Turner, 2002; Parker & Wall, 1998, 2001.)
This is not to deny that a substantial body of useful work has been conducted in developing Hackman and Oldham's core model. For example, progress has been made in identifying some antecedents of job design (e.g. management style; see Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001), new moderators (e.g. context satisfaction; Oldham, 1996), additional job characteristics (e.g. cognitive demands; Parker & Wall, 2001), further outcomes (e.g. proactive behaviours; Parker & Turner, 2002) and contingencies influencing the applicability of the theory (e.g. uncertainty; Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, 2002). However, while these studies represent substantial progress, we interpret these as further embellishments of the core model. We believe the above characterization of mainstream job design theory remains valid in the main.
While the criticisms above are primarily aimed at what may be termed the job characteristics approach to job design, we should also acknowledge the contribution of sociotechnical thinking to our understanding of job design theory (see Cherns, 1976, 1987; Trist & Bamforth, 1951). A central idea in this tradition involves the adoption of semi-autonomous work groups (Herbst, 1962). However, while the importance of peers is accepted, as is the changing role of supervision, sociotechnical theory makes little attempt to delineate the role of such individuals in the job design process, except to say that people often work in teams, with the corollary that the role of the supervisor thereby changes. This tradition has also placed less emphasis on the motivating properties of jobs (Cummings, 1978). However the thrust of our criticisms above also apply to this tradition as it concerns itself with job design. In particular, the sociotechnical tradition also treats job design as a predictor variable, job performance as an outcome and the causal flow as unidirectional; furthermore, job designs are usually seen as relatively fixed in the short term (see, e.g. Beekun, 1989; Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Cummings, Molloy, & Glen, 1977; Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, & Shani, 1982).
As stated above, our objective in this paper is to offer a new model of the process of job design, that attempts to synthesize ideas emerging in the literature, as well as to develop some new insights. To achieve this, we draw on and further develop, five major sets of ideas in the area, and integrate them in the form of a new model. The five ideas are summarized below and elaborated upon later when describing our model.
The first idea is that job designs are flexible and adjustable in the short term. For example, Frese, Garst, and Fay (in press) argue that some people behave proactively to change their own job designs. Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) propose that job-holders can adapt their job content through a process of 'job crafting'. Various authors have identified the process of role innovation, through which job-holders introduce new behaviours into pre-existing roles (Nicholson, 1984; West, 1987). Graen and Scandura (1987) stress the influence of the job-holder in actively developing a role that is satisfactory to oneself and the role senders (such as supervisors and other colleagues). Several researchers have pointed out that the job-holder's supervisor can have an influence on job content in the short term, for example through delegation (e.g. Morrison, Upton, & Cordery, 1999). Thus, job design can be a recurring local process, not necessarily requiring explicit formal redesign initiatives.
Second, the job-holder's performance and perceptions of his/her competence by other key actors (most obviously the supervisor and peers) are important factors in the job design process. These may influence the extent to which the job-holder can negotiate the opportunity (and/or find the space) to change his/her job content (Bauer & Green, 1996; Lowin & Craig, 1968). In this way, job performance can act as a predictor of job design (as well as an outcome of it). This also implicates other local actors in the process of job design (Graen & Scandura, 1987; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Third, knowledge is a key factor in understanding the impact of job design. More particularly, changes in job content that expand the role and responsibilities of job-holders allow them to develop new knowledge and skills, and these help explain why performance may improve (Leach, Wall, &Jackson, 2003; Morrison et al., 1999). In this view, motivation is not the sole variable explaining the impact of job design (Frese & Zapf, 1994; Parker & Turner, 2002; Parker & Wall, 2001).
Fourth, changes in job content have an impact on self-efficacy, which has a critical role in predicting subsequent changes in behaviour and performance (Bandura, 1982; Burr & Cordery, 2001; Parker, 1998; Spector, 1995). Furthermore, there is a dynamic interplay between self-efficacy and several other variables central to the job design process. For example, Leach et al. (2003) postulate that knowledge acquisition leads to greater self-efficacy, which in turn can encourage further acquisition.
Finally, underpinning much of the above, is the notion that the process of job design is dynamic and circular (as opposed to unidirectional). Thus, for example, job content is an outcome of these processes as well as a predictor, and the same holds for job performance. Aspects of this circularity have been recognized in parts of the job design literature. For example, Karasek and Theorell (1990) identify the possibility of long-term dynamic spirals of behaviour, one positive, the other negative. In the former, an active job setting allows successful learning which in turn promotes mastery and confidence and increased capacity to accept more challenging situations, thereby promoting more learning, and so on. James and Tetrick (1986) argue that job perceptions and job satisfaction are related reciprocally. Shea and Howell (2000) demonstrate empirically the reciprocal relations between serf-efficacy and job performance. Frese et al. (in press) argue that people can behave proactively to change their job content, and that this subsequently influences their opportunity and capacity for further proactivity. Furthermore, Leach et al. (2003) acknowledge the self-perpetuating link between knowledge and self-efficacy. As such, we are arguing for a general recognition of the circular and dynamic nature of the process of job design. In this we agree with Morgan's general axiom for organizational behaviour that we need to think in 'loops not lines' (Morgan, 1997, p. 274).
In the next section we present a new model of the process of job design that tries to integrate and further develop these ideas.
A new model of the process of job design
Our model of the job design process is presented in Figure 1. We first describe the relationships in the model, before considering the main contingencies and the nature of the time lags involved.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In outline, we propose that good job performance on the part of the job-holder is interpreted by supervisors and...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective p..., June 01, 2007
Why managers prefer some influence tactics to other tactics: a net uti..., June 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
%20%20&position=1)