Job Enrichment

By Peter Mione "You know that retaining experienced employees is a key factor in our continued success, yet I see us losing more and more of our long-standing account managers. Our survey shows they are bored with their jobs. I want a quick motivational training program for all employees starting in a week. Let's make sure this doesn't continue to happen!" "We want to make sure we hang on to our top performing service representatives. I want you to put together an hour presentation showing them the options for advancement in our company. We can't afford to lose these people to the competition." As with so many similar requests, analysis will most likely show that a training solution would not be very effective for either of the above scenarios. If the root causes of the scenarios are truly related to boredom and lack of preparation for advancement, job enrichment could be an excellent non-training intervention. Job enrichment is a type of job redesign intended to reverse the effects of tasks that are repetitive requiring little autonomy. Some of these effects are boredom, lack of flexibility, and employee dissatisfaction (Leach & Wall, 2004). The underlying principle is to expand the scope of the job with a greater variety of tasks, vertical in nature, that require self-sufficiency. Since the goal is to give the individual exposure to tasks normally reserved for differently focused or higher positions, merely adding more of the same responsibilities related to an employee's current position is not considered job enrichment. The basis for job enrichment practices is the work done by Frederick Herzberg in the 1950's and 60's, which was further refined in 1975 by Hackman and Oldham using what they called the Job Characteristics Model. This model assumes that if five core job characteristics are present, three psychological states critical to motivation are produced, resulting in positive outcomes (Kotila, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates this model. Job enrichment can only be truly successful if planning includes support for all phases of the initiative. Ohio State University Extension began a job enrichment program in 1992 and surveyed the participants five years later. The results, broken down into 3 sub-buckets of data beyond the main grouping of advantages/disadvantages as shown in Table 1, indicate the University had not fully considered the planning and administrative aspects of the program (Fourman and Jones, 1997). While the benefits are seemingly obvious, programs fail not

According to Cunningham and Eberle (1990). R.nz/fjobdesign. References Brown. . In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results. and potential job classification changes (Cunningham and Eberle. challenge. not just more work for them to do. but rather due to implementation problems.html.co. Keenan. but…researchers report that some people they expected to resist. variety. Some people are very resistant to more responsibility or to opportunities for personal growth. lack of long-term commitment of resources. To date. Ralph Brown (2004) summed it up very nicely: Job enrichment doesn't work for everyone. positive results can be directly tied to a program that addressed the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding to staff. and feedback for the participants. Design Jobs that motivate and develop people.because of a lack of benefits. before an enrichment program is begun. all three Training Generalists have experienced promotions and additional recognition while affording Ms. A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in some situations where a Performance Technician is faced with a request for motivational training. and opportunities to learn? What techniques can be implemented without changing the job classification plan? What techniques would require changes in the job classification plan? (p.3) When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment program begun in 2002. stated the accomplishments were.).d. Having a voluntary program contributed as well.media-associates. seized the opportunity. The Training Generalist program has resulted in three successful participants to date. accountability. the following questions should be asked: Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility. as well as to proper planning. worker needs and organizational needs must be analyzed and acted upon. 1990). 2004. Retrieved February 14. Keenan's team financial results and workload flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved. Enriching jobs is a particularly effective way to develop employees provided the jobs are truly enriched. guidance. These problems can include a perception of too great a cost. significance. Karen Keenan. According to Ms. attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their skills and be positioned for advancement. Learning Manager with Bank of America. from http://www. "greater than expected". feedback. (n.

Journal of Extension. Retrieved February 10. A guide to job enrichment and redesign. http://academic.edu/departments/cola/psych/psyc323/chat07/index. Breaking down tasks associated with each component in the system has led to the concept of job design.).d.html. Chapter seven motivation through needs. The more organized and efficient the different components in the business are. Retrieved February 10. 1971). job design. J.uk/~iwp/publications/whatis/job_design.emporia. T. October). D. (1990).S. L. Job enrichment in extension. and satisfaction. O. Retrieved February 14. What is? Job design. the better it functions and produces.htm. the focus can be that of improving quality and quantity of . Job design came about with rapid technological advancements at the turn of the 20th century when mass production and assembly line operations emerged. Number 5.org/joe/1997october/iw1. Retrieved February 8. T.(1999). slide 20.shef. & Eberle. (n.siu. Retrieved from http://www. As jobs continue to become more sophisticated and specialized. the need for an educated and motivated workforce has become indispensable. B. (2001). Increased productivity can manifest itself in various forms.ac. Job enrichment.joe. & Wall. Drez.edu/~janegf/jeguide. Job Design By Roberto Encarnación Introduction Organization is the strength of any business. 35..pdf.pdf. 2004 from http://www. Fourman. 2004. Job Design The main purpose of job design (or re-design) is to increase both employee motivation and productivity (Rush.washington. J. 2004. Kotila. from http://www. For example. & Jones. 2004 from Leach. J. (1997. from http://faculty.Cunningham.html.edu/smithwil/001fmg456/eja/kotila456.

etc. The risk here is that the employee would be transferred too much responsibility and autonomy in the planning and control aspects of the job. as cited in Rush) describes two sets of factors.goods and services. and/or reduce turnover and training costs. Methods of Job Design The performance technologist has at his or her disposal four methods of job design. and that the opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction but no dissatisfaction". while the satisfying factors help the employee reach self-actualization and can increase motivation to continue to do the job. the Two-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg (1971. but allows the opportunity to increase his/her skills and knowledge about other jobs. "the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction. work simplification is the analysis of a job's most basic components to restructure or redesign them to make the job more efficient. allows an employee to work in different departments or jobs in an organization to gain better insight into operations. The first.). but no satisfaction. Lastly. extending the length of time he or she has to complete them. Robertson and Smith (1985) recommend the following strategy for analyzing existing jobs: Step one: Review the literature and other extant data (training manual. Tasks that reduce the amount of specialization required by the employee. however. Job enrichment. Done right. Herzberg (1966) made a critical distinction between these factors in that a person does not move in a continuum from being dissatisfied to becoming satisfied or vice versa. can be used to increase motivation by giving employee's more and varied tasks. job rotation. 7) tries to explain Herzberg's point by stating that. in itself. . p. does not modify or redesigns the employee's job. The second. This. old job descriptions. as well as. that affect an employee's self-esteem and opportunity for self-actualization in the workplace (See Table 1). allows the employee to take on some responsibilities normally delegated to management. satisfying and dissatisfying. increasing employees' motivation can be achieved through increased job satisfaction. In a practical sense. the third method. On the other hand. To this end. Rush (1971. this means that dissatisfying factors help support and maintain the structure of the job. reduce operation costs. the newfound control would invigorate the employee to work more effectively. job enlargement.

and feedback that inevitably affect the efficiency and motivation of the employee responsible to the job. Overall. Step three: Ask similar questions to the current employee doing the job. seeks to understand if there is alignment between the job description and what professors are actually doing. Ph D.. most teachers enter the profession for idealistic reasons and tend to be highly motivated to do exceptionally well once they are in the classroom. Question two. which does not seem to be tied to awarding teachers for their effectiveness or quality of teaching. and Step Six: Write a job description detailing all your findings. is asked to try and compare how the extant literature. incentives. director for the Center of Teaching and Learning at San Diego State University (SDSU). steps one and two. steps one and three in Robertson and Smith's list. Step Five: Try to do the job yourself. From the K-12 perspective. For example. discusses how incentives play a role in teacher motivation. Additional aspects to consider when analyzing and (re)designing a job are the policies. in this case-teaching standards. In The Field Brock Allen. Another incentive. and the managers help identify indicators of effective teaching. The last question. for example). he suggests asking questions such as: How do professors 1) understand their job description? 2) manage a course? and 3) become and are held accountable for student learning? The first question. one that does tie into teacher effectiveness. steps two and three. the district awards teachers at the end of the year for having perfect attendance with a bonus. If the analysis is done to better understand the responsibilities of professors as teachers (and not as researchers. careful to not attempt jobs that are very dangerous and that are done by employees with prolonged experience. he agrees. David Honda. Step Four: Observe an employee who does the job well. is that of offering courses for teachers to learn new teaching strategies.Step two: Ask immediate managers about responsibilities and tasks required to do the job well. places job-design analysis in an educational context. earn credit to be used toward moving up on the pay scale. . can be addressed to both managers and professors to determine the different methodologies and strategies that are used to teach effectively. as well as. Math Administrator at Marshall Middle School in the San Diego City Schools (SDSU) district.

and meaningful are words used to describe a job that is well designed and more appealing to the person performing the task (Redmond. 2010. Eventually. 10. Cleveland: World Publishing Co. Hunt. Robertson. & Smith. p. H. Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed the second theory known as the Job Characteristics Theory. (1985). Originally focused on job simplification. and practice. Work and the nature of man. 2005). job design involved standardizing tasks and placing people into specialized roles (Schermerhorn. not from situations experienced on the job or external rewards (Garg & Rastogi. New York: The Conference Board. Haphazardly designed jobs that lack adequate attention to the needs of the workers. Rush. & Osborn. often translating into a productive work-force that meets business goals (Schermerhorn. 78). Two predominate theories have resulted from the work on this approach to motivation. p. 2010). (1971). along with how job content works to intrinsically motivate a person to achieve the goal of satisfaction. M. These jobs often supply employees with a high level of satisfaction. (1966). 2). St. Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. research. This is done for the purpose of identifying and correcting any deficiencies that affect performance and motivation. F. Paul: West Publishing Co. the focus shifted to combining how people relate to their jobs. 2006) (Redmond. Job Design Job Design Overview Interesting. Motivation and job design: Theory. or any relevant design at all. addressed the design of individual jobs as a two-factor theory.Conclusion Job design serves to improve performance and motivation. motivating. with the main premise being that motivation comes from the nature of the job itself. can sometimes be described as nothing more than "arbitrary groupings of activities" (Campion & Thayer. 1987. which focused primarily on the content and nature of the tasks. & Osborn 2004). Job-design analysis starts by looking at a job with a broad perspective and swiftly moves toward identifying the specific activities required to do the job. developed by Frederick Herzberg. 2010). Hunt. References Herzberg. . I. The first. "Changing jobs to be more meaningful and satisfying to employees could be an important source of motivation and job satisfaction" (Redmond.

according to Herzberg. but could cause dissatisfaction (Herzberg. also known as the motivation-hygiene theory. if dissatisfaction exists as a result of hygiene factors. then there can be no motivation. Herzberg reasoned that the feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite of each other. Below is a table that shows the top factors to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. and personal growth. Therefore. working conditions. Herzberg believed that hygiene factors such as company policies. recognition. . included areas such as interesting work. based on the idea that two factors are involved when it comes to job motivation.Herzberg's Two-factor Theory Frederick Herzberg developed the two-factor theory. The intrinsic motivators. which could enhance employee motivation if these factors were properly developed causing satisfaction. The two factors involve extrinsic. and compensation did not serve to motivate individuals. or "hygiene" factors and intrinsic motivators and how they correlate to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. 1974). The table demonstrates that factors leading to one do not lead to the other.

Ex. 3.Herzberg suggests that management needs to focus on reestablishing work so motivators are able to work.) hairstylists. 2. job rotation. sales positions. Direct Feedback– Immediate knowledge of the results that an employee is achieving. and job enrichment: General Characteristics of Herzberg’s Theory 1. . Ex. This can be done through job enlargement.) highway patrolman catching a speeding motorist.) skill variety enables the employee to learn and use more skills or knowledge. relationship managers. Client Relationships– An employee with an “enriched” job receives direct feedback. New Learning– An “enriched” job allows the employee to grow psychologically. Ex.

result in positive work outcomes. The job characteristics theory suggests that employees may be more internally motivated. which took the idea of intrinsic motivation further by defining psychological states that must be present in order for workers to be motivated. and have a lower absence and/or turnover when all are followed by a well-developed job design. and job feedback. Personal Accountability– An employee is accountable for his results. 8. Direct Communication Authority– Communicate directly with people who use his or her output. Task significance refers to how important a job is and its impact on others. task identity. The job characteristics theory has three primary components: core job dimensions. and work outcomes. These states are dependent upon the characteristics of the job and are moderated by an individual’s internal desire for growth (Hackman & Oldham. Hackman and Oldham developed the Job Characteristics Theory. Scheduling– Employees have the freedom to schedule some part of their own work. Skill variety refers to the number of different skills a specific job requires. Job Characteristics Theory In 1976. Experienced meaningfulness is the .) an employee reporting directly to quality control.There are five core job dimensions: skill variety. After creation of the theory. freedom. Critical Psychological States . critical psychological states. satisfied with their overall job and personal growth opportunities. task significance.) custodian given the opportunity to repair building damage. etc. 7. and independence employees have to do their jobs. with each of the components working together to influence employee motivation.There are three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness. Job feedback is the direct and clear information received by the employee regarding the effectiveness of their performance. Ex. 1976). which should.) employees are responsible for meeting their deadlines. generate high quality work. in return. experienced responsibility. Core Job Dimensions . 5. Ex.4. and knowledge.) nurse ordering medical supplies. autonomy. Ex. Ex. a relationship between job characteristics and the employee's motivation was found. Unique Experience– Qualities or features that are unique. The theory was originally intended as a way to evaluate jobs to see if they should be redesigned to increase employee motivation and production. Control Over Resources– Employees may have their own budgets to order supplies. 6.) whether to work 8 hours straight with no lunch or work 9 hours and take an hour lunch. Ex. Task Identity is the extent to which a job requires completing the whole process from beginning to end. Autonomy is the level of choice.

To measure work outcomes. Hackman and Oldham developed the following equation to determine a person's MPS: MPS = [(Skill Variety + Task Significance + Task Identity)/3] * Autonomy * Feedback The figure below. The core dimensions. are all areas that determine the meaningfulness of the job. task identity. This would lead to a feeling of autonomy. Experienced responsibility is the degree of personal accountability a person has for their work outcomes. Skill variety. A score of 0 on any one of the characteristics results in an overall motivational score of 0. Knowledge refers to how well a person believes they are performing on the job. Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed what they termed the Motivational Potential Score (MPS). which may be influenced by the job feedback an employee receives regarding their performance. which suggests that by measuring the elements from the core job dimensions and critical psychological states. 2005).extent to which the employee feels his job is important. Work Outcomes . Autonomy gives the jobholder a sense of responsibility and feedback satisfies the need for knowledge. MPS is a summary index of a job's potential for motivating a person using the five core dimensions (Smith & Hitt. 1987). and task significance all contribute to a sense of meaningfulness. Scores above 0 will vary by the individuals rating the job. one may be able to predict the potential for motivating a person. the Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation. illustrates the relationships of the three primary components and how each corresponds to employee motivation (Campion & Thayer. task identity and task significance. skill variety. .

. 1988).1972). & Oldham. (1976). focus on the development of human potential and the desire for personal growth and increased competence (Alderfer. G.. 1976).Graphic of Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation is from Hackman. According to Hackman and Oldham (1980). This sequence is explicit in Hackman and Oldham's (1980)explanation of the 'motivating potential' of jobs. The impact of a job on a person is moderated by a person's needs(Oldham. Growth needs. J. Motivation through the design of work: Test of the theory. Oldham et al. jobholders will be internally motivated to perform wellbecause certain needs will be met. 25-279 as cited in Redmond (2010) Job characteristics theory predicts attitudes and behavior based on the reactions of job incumbents to their tasks. . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Increasing the motivating potential signifies the degree to which jobs are 'enriched' in that they provide for the fulfillment of growth needs (Gardner and Cummings. 16. if certain characteristics are present in a job. 1976. in turn.

task identity. Research on Job Design Herzberg's Two-factor Theory An empirical test was conducted to research the validity of the two-factor theory that resulted in helping uphold any debate centered on the theory (Ewen. as well as the one-dimensional traditional theory of job satisfaction (Ewen. but all offer the . and task feedback. These remarkable outcomes were consistent with each hypothesis tested. There were some other limitations in this study. The intrinsic variables were referred to as “satisfiers” and the extrinsic one was referenced to as the “dissatisfier.Five core job characteristics define the motivating potential of a job: skill variety. instead the data are medians of both. recognizable piece of work. & Smith. but evidence justifies that overall. However. the results prove aspects of one theory while simultaneously disproving components of another. & Smith. Locke. The dissatisfier was found to be dependent upon how content the participant was with the satisfier. to measure job satisfaction precisely. This instrument was developed at Cornell University and according to Ewen et al. 1966). Task identity is the degree to which the job requires the completion of a whole.” The study implemented the use of the JDI. The results of the empirical test consisted of data that did not uphold the Herzberg two-factor theory. (1966) is a well-constructed and reliable tool to measure job satisfaction. Job Descriptive Index. 1966). satisfiers remain the most significant source of job satisfaction. This experiment was designed using only three factors that influenced job satisfaction which left out many factors that could have impacted results. the participants that were neutral towards intrinsic variables were discovered to be generally more satisfied then the malcontent. whereas the hygiene (extrinsic variable) was salary.Task feedback is the well-defined opportunity to know how effectively one is performingdirectly from the job itself. Hulin. Nathan King (1970) presents a study comparing five versions of the theory that he states have been offered by other researchers in their attempts to define Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. The author attempts to explain and evaluate these versions of the theory with the goal of offering a solid definition. Motivators (intrinsic variable) were the work itself and promotions. The empirical test assessed multiple hypotheses using a sample of 793 male employees from diverse work backgrounds. Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the lives of other people. task autonomy. task significance. The consensus of the test revealed that the satisfiers demonstrate a stronger correlation to both overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction than the dissatisfier. Essentially. Skill variety is the opportunity to use numerous and varied skills in one's personal repertoire to perform the work. These results don’t lean towards one theory. Hulin. Locke. The results of this empirical study also strongly imply that discontented feelings towards intrinsic variables produce general dissatisfaction. Each version carries a different balance of motivators and hygienes. Task autonomy is the extent to which the job provides individual discretion relating to the work process.

In addition. Although there was definitive evidence of differing levels of affect each of these characteristics has on worker motivation. As a result of these changes. Humphrey.idea that the combination of the two is what determines motivation. and internal work motivation. They also found that extrinsic factors decrease employee's job satisfaction. which one increased it the most. conducted by Fried and Ferris (1987). The authors used the Schmidt--Hunter Psychometric Meta-analysis method (2004) in the study as a way to prevent inaccurate results. task significance. This study focused on work motivation in a retail setting. and Morgeson (2007) conducted a research study attempting to prove whether the five characteristics truly show a relationship with all characteristics suggested by the theory. 2009). The results of this study confirmed that work motivation is in fact driven by the satisfaction of our higher needs and not by our mundane needs. According to this study. task identity. growth satisfaction. What the researcher found was that intrinsic factors such as responsibility. The researchers questioned whether motivation increases or decreases based on the type of season and also what the factors that influenced job motivation were.000 participants confirming that job design is integral to worker motivation. Job Characteristics Theory The job characteristics theory had more research conducted with greater support for it. Hackman and Oldham (1976) defined which work characteristics produce more satisfied workers in job situations. A recent empirical study was published concerning the two-factor theory and how it influenced job motivation for seasonal hotel and tourism workers. Gudmundson. In the end. The five characteristics are: autonomy. & Andersson. However. According to the theory. people should become more motivated and therefore improve work performance (Greasley. discovered during a metaanalytic examination that those five characteristics possessed a strong correlation to job satisfaction. Herzberg proposed that humans have two sets of needs and our work satisfaction and dissatisfaction depend on whether those needs are met (Lundberg. The study reviewed more than 250 studies and nearly 250. Nahrgang. and that further investigation was needed to determine a true working definition of the two factor theory. self-development. these five components boost positive behavioral and attitudinal outcomes while lessening chances of negative ones. 1999). then they must give more responsibility and feedback to all employees. the end result still confirms the theory created by Hackman and Oldham. these five traits showed a poor relationship to job performance and absenteeism. The study itself was strongly steered by the peaking demands of work at different times of the year (Kennedy. if employers want employees to have higher work motivation. According to this study. . The researchers were theorizing whether extrinsic or intrinsic factors increased work motivation and if so. and personal recognition increased job satisfaction and work motivation. Another study conducted by Parsons and Broadbride (2006) also confirmed the two-factor theory and its effect on motivation. 2008). and feedback from the job. the study exposed the limits of current empirical data on the theory as well as holes in the research that exist. that each of these components has a legitimate and real affect. In their own studies. skill variety. King discovered that not all versions could be supported empirically. Another study.

1997). 2010). The Job Characteristics Theory was conducted within a short time frame instead of using long term data (Griffin. 2010).Strengths and Weaknesses of the Job Design Theory Herzberg's Two-factor Theory Herzberg's Two-Factor theory provided awareness that job design can impact employee satisfaction and motivation and laid the ground work for job characteristics theory. In fact. 2010). This assumption discounted individual differences and goals. motivational. Workers may have "cognitive satisfaction" because their hygiene needs are being met. 2008. but they still are not motivated at their jobs (Bright. the study made the assumption that all employees want the same outcomes (Locke. and high physiological scores were achieved (Loher.40 between core job dimensions scores and reported job satisfaction (1985). and benefits when used to redesign a job.7). Herzberg's theory is evidenced through anecdotal support. 1986) Job Characteristics Theory Job Characteristics Theory improves upon Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (Northouse. There are multiple weaknesses with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Each is designed to focus on different characteristics of a job thereby producing different outcomes. When reviewing a collaboration of studies. Noe. Herzberg's study (which had the highest positive results for the theory) has been criticized because the methodology was not scientifically sound (Northouse. there is little support for Herzberg's two-factor theory and it is considered invalid by the majority of organizational scholars (Locke & Henne. 1976). 1985). It also does not take cultural differences into consideration and the outcomes would likely not be the same across different cultures (Pearson & Chong. p. While correlations can be informative. Michelle Jones' research shows a very weak relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. mechanistic. and perceptual/motor. . Application of Job Design in the Workplace There are several ways to implement job design in the workplace. The main weakness of the Job Characteristics Theory is the correlational data. 2010). biological. (Northouse. it can also be misleading. There are no tangible measures for hygiene and motivation factors (Northouse. there was an average correlation of . Campion and Thayer (1987) offer four individual ways approaches. Additionally. has tangible measures. & Fitzgerald. It has been studied extensively. Moeller. 1991). Correlation does not show causation. & Fitzgerald. As reported by Loher. costs. Moeller. Noe.

On the other hand. Outcomes. but by passing it to the employee he/she may feel an increase in job satisfaction. and Trade-offs. (1987). This is a task that was normally done by the manager. Organizational Dynamics. the duties of secretarial positions included running errands for your supervisor. To this end. 15. increasing employees' motivation can be achieved through increased job satisfaction. the focus can be that of improving quality and quantity of goods and services. and/or reduce turnover and training costs. monotonous motions. and passing along messages. Secretarial positions have been enriched by allowing secretaries to take care of accounting and finances. Theories at Work Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory: Janitorial positions can be enriched by allowing employees to order their own cleaning supplies. Satisfactory and Dis-satisfactory Factors The main purpose of job design (or re-design) is to increase both employee motivation and productivity (Rush. P. Job design: Approaches. the TwoHygiene Theory by Herzberg (1971. Job Characteristics Theory: Assemblers on an assembly line are required to stand or sit in constant position for significant periods of time engaging in repetitive. allowing the janitor to create his/her own work schedule increases the autonomy of the job (Redmond. Also. as cited in Rush) describes two sets of factors. answering phones. satisfying and . 1971). and dealing with human resource issues (Redmond.Table based on job design approaches from Campion. employers may implement a rotating assembly schedule to allow the employees to complete several different tasks during a scheduled work day. For example. & Thayer. In the past. To enrich these jobs. M. sitting in on meetings. 2010). 66-79.. scheduling appointments. 2010). Increased productivity can manifest itself in various forms. reduce operation costs.

Work itself 4. that affect an employee's self-esteem and opportunity for self-actualization in the workplace. Job Security 8.. Because differences in age and experience creates cohorts that are confounded. Growth Job Design and Generational Differences A significant increase in the longevity of humans. Advancement 6. Statistics 7. Parker. Supervision 3. 2010). Personal Life Satisfactory Factors 1. Administrative Policies 2. assertiveness. 2010). 2010). but less likely to do it in a way that meets with organizational goals (Grant et al. and the belief that outcomes of events are controlled by external circumstances.. Examples of these are seen below: Dis-satisfactory Factors 1. Twenge (2006) suggests that Millennials are less concerned with acquiring social approval than previous generations and more likely to be characterized by higher levels of self-esteem. . With respect to job design. While popular media outlets have made claims that the Millennials.dissatisfying. this raises concern of whether Millennials will be more likely to expect praise and reject criticism when given interpersonal feedback.. hold fundamentally different values than the preceding generations. 2010). 2010). & Frese. designing a proper study is challenging (Grant et al. Interpersonal Relations 5. few empirical studies have been conducted to properly examine the differences they may have with regard to work motivations (Grant et al. coupled with a decrease in birth rates. or if they will be more comfortable negotiating ideals and taking initiative in crafting their jobs.. which may discourage taking initiative and proactive thinking (Grant et al. 2010). Salary 6. also known as Generation Y. Fried. Achievement 2. Responsibilities 5. Working Conditions 4.. Recognition 3. narcissism. This makes it increasingly difficult to draw conclusions pertaining to job design and how it may need to be adapted to fit a blended work-force (Grant et al. has created concern regarding job design and how it can be constructed to fit multiple generations working side by side with substantially different ideals (Grant.

. (1966). W. Garg. New York. 425-435.. (2006). 7. Will they be inclined to pursue more peripheral jobs that allow them a greater degree of family and leisure time. R.. Greasley. from ACCEL Team Development: http://www.. 40. 2010). Journal of Applied Psychology. Herzberg. (1974). Organizational Dynamics. The ladder. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. S. Campion. p. New model of job design: motivating employees' performance. outcomes... 66-79. E.html Ewen. J. G. R. Hulin. 287-332. Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. 2010). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and metaanalysis. (2010). 2010)? It remains to be seen whether the motivation of the older generations to continue working will be determined by task significance. Sydney Morning Herald. and behaviors: A long-term investigation. R. March 1). (1987).. J. A. & Rastogi.). & Ferris. Retrieved November 1. the Organizational Environment and Productivity. (1991).. A. P. An empirical test of yhe Herzberg two-factor theory. 145-157. R. (2008. Griffin. Locke. Employee Motivation.. P. Fried. 50(6). M.. 25(6).M. (1976). and trade-offs.K. attitudes. Grant. 34. Operations management (2nd ed. Inc. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Job design: Approaches. G. 2009. R.The higher proportion of elderly workers who have chosen to remain employed and the retired who have chosen to return to work has raised additional questions regarding job design and how the generations will be able to work together (Grant et al. & Thayer.accelteam. 1332-1356. C. M. 18-29. Fried. & Frese. Organizational Dynamics. NY: John Wiley & Sons. . 3(2). Academy of Management Journal.. References Bright. 250-279. Parker. R. Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions. or will they be interested in competing with a younger generation that is motivated by the more demanding jobs (Grant et al. (2009). Personnel Psychology. 31. & Oldham.. Y. meaningful contribution. Hackman. Power to the people.com/work_design/wd_02. (2008). Putting job designin context: Introduction to the special issue. F. 572-587. Y. 15. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16. The Journal of Management Development. or possibly both and whether all generations can effectively work together under the same job design or if designs will need to be altered (Grant et al. P. (1987).. & Smith.

. Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction.. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Chichester. California: Sage Publications. and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. F.). Tourism Management. R.d. International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. A. Moeller. Pearson. (1997). (2010). Parsons. 5(1). (n. Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. 890-899. 1332-1356. Nourthouse. IL: Rand McNally.G. Cooper & I. from Human Technology: http://www.The Business and Finance of Tourism and Recreation. Inc. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. (1971). Job motivation and satisfaction: Unpacking the key factors for charity shop managers. T. 92(5). F. Job Design: Do I find my work interesting and challenging? Work Attitudes and Motivation. 13(2).cfm Kennedy.. T. (2008). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. M. & Chong. L.. (1970). 18-31. Dunnette (Ed. Seasonality in Irish tourism.humtech. Redmond. In M. Journal of Applied Psychology. Individual Learning Strategies. Lundberg. (1985). Psychological Bulletin. Tourism Economoics . & Broadbride.com/opm/grtl/ILS/ils1. L. J. P. 25-47. Journal of Applied Psychology. E. 74. Gudmundson. J. 30. (2007).. A. (1999).. A. King. C. Locke. A. & Morgeson. 1297-1349). & Hitt. M.). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. (1976). Retrieved November 1. New York: The Conference Board. A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. UK: John Wiley. Chicago. C. B.. (2006). 121-131. N. A.. D. Noe. & Fitgerald.. Integrating motivational.. The Pennsylvania State University World Campus Rush. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. (1986). T. S. & Andersson. Oxford. Contributions of job content and social information on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An exploration in a Malaysian nursing context. Nahrgang.). B. Thousand Oaks. Locke. 70. In C. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. E. & Henne. social. D. Leadership: Theory and Practice. H. 280-289. 357-374. A. 2009. (2007). NY: Oxford University Press.Humphreys. Work motivation theories. N. 70. E. Robertson (Eds. (2005). E. Smith. G. A. 1973-1995. K... D. P. Loher. 1-35).

(2006). J. NY: John Wiley & Sons. J.M. assertive. New York. New York. Inc.). entitled and more miserable than ever before. NY: Free Press . J. N. Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confident. Hunt.Schermerhorn. R. Twenge. Organizational Behavior (9th ed. R. & Osborn. (2005). G..

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful