Perceived Task Characteristics and Employee Performance: A Literature Review

Author(s): Ricky W. Griffin, Ann Welsh and Gregory Moorhead

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 655-664
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257645
Accessed: 07-03-2015 10:39 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management
Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Academy of Management Review 1981, Vol. 6, No. 4, 655-664

Perceived Task and

Characteristics
Employee Performance:A Literature Reviewl'2
RICKYW. GRIFFIN
Texas A&M University
ANN WELSH
University of Missouri - Columbia
GREGORYMOORHEAD
Arizona State University
We review 13 studiesdealing with empiricalrelationshipsbetweenperceivedtask
scopeand employeeperformance.Resultsfrom thesestudiesare contradictoryand
inconclusive.Most studies use less than adequatemeasuresof employeeperfor-
mance.Moreover,althougha causalrelationshipis assumed,reciprocalor reverse
causality may exist. There is a clear needfor further theoreticalexplicationand
improvedlaboratoryandfield researchaimedat enhancingbothconstructvalidity
and substantiveconsiderations.

Recent reviews of the literature have concluded
that the task design/performance relationship has
not been as consistently demonstrated as have task
design/affective response relationships. Our pur-
pose in this review is to examine task/performance
relationships more closely, with the objectives of
determining why reported results have been so
inconclusive and suggesting future research direc-
tions. Task design refers to the overall set of work-
related activities performed by an employee; task
and job characteristicsrefer to specific attributes or
dimensions (e.g., variety, autonomy, feedback,
identity, and task significance) that can be used to
describe different tasks; and task scopeis the extent
to which a job has these various characteristics.
Overview of Task Design Research
Since the pioneering research of Turner and
Lawrence [1964], Hulin and Blood [1968], and
'We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Diana Perl in the
preparation of this manuscript.
2Portions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Institute for Decision Sciences, Las Vegas, 1980.
? 1981
by the Academy of Management 0363-7425
655
Hackman and Lawler [1971], research in the area of
task design has mushroomed. For the most part,
these research efforts have focused on one or more
of the following points: (1) employee perceptions of
their tasks, (2) relationships among these percep-
tions and organizationally relevant outcome vari-
ables, or (3) possible mediating variables between
employee task perceptions and the outcome vari-
ables. This formulation of task design interrelation-
ships is perhaps best represented by the job charac-
teristics theory [Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980].
One particularaspect of the formulation that war-
rants critical attention is the predicted relationship
between perceived task scope and employee perfor-
mance. The rationale for such a relationship has
been well argued by Richard Hackman and his
associates. A paper by Hackman and Lawler [1971]
laid the foundation by developing a task design
framework from expectancy theory [Vroom, 1964].
This initial framework, which suggested that
employees work harder to the extent that their
individual needs and organizational goals are con-
gruent, was more clearly explicated in 1976 by
Hackman and Oldham. In their job characteristics
theory, they stated that all outcome variables, in-

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cluding quality of work performance, "are expected
to be more positive for jobs with high motivating
potential" [p. 259], i.e., tasks with high scope. This
assertion is also found in Hackman [1977].
The most recent presentation of the job charac-
teristics model [Hackman & Oldham, 1980] also
includes performance or work effectivenessas a spe-
cific outcome variable. Work effectiveness, in turn,
consists of both quality and quantity of output. The
rationale for assuming a quality relationship is that
"when a job is high in motivating potential, people
who work on that job tend to experience positive
affect when they perform well"[p. 91]. The quantity
prediction is based on three factors: (1) high-scope
tasks are generally not routine and boring; hence,
employees are not as likely to search for ways of
avoiding work, (2) as a result of task changes aimed
at increasing scope, hidden inefficiences in the
work system may be corrected, and (3) such
changes may simplify and refine the total work
system. Hence, the theoretical and conceptual argu-
ments for predicting a task scope/performance re-
lationship would seem to be both reasonable and
logical.
Importance of the Performance Variable
Performance is generally discussed within the
contexts of motivation, leader behavior, task
design, goal setting, and most other primary areas
of organizational research. Yet, empirical tests
involving performance and the various areas of
study are generally disappointing or inconclusive.
The performance variable, however, should main-
tain its position of primacy in organizational
research for at least two reasons.
First, the aggregate productivity growth rate in
the United States has fallen considerably behind
that of other industrialized countries such as Japan
and West Germany. For example, in the United
States, the value of goods produced by each worker
has increased by 62 percent from 1950 to 1977; the
corresponding increases in Japan and West Ger-
many for the same time period have been 531 and
256 percent, respectively ["Productivity," 1979].
Productivity growth is an important factor in sta-
bilizing our economy through improved living
standards, higher wages, an increase in goods
available for consumption, and so forth. Hence,
656
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
increased study of the determinants of individual
employee performance is important to society in
general.
A secondjustification for continued interest in
performance is more pragmatic. For obvious
reasons, many managers are interested in improving
employee productivity within their organizations.
Hence, a contribution that organizational re-
searchers could make to practicing managers would
be increased understanding of the causes and con-
sequences of employee performance. Further re-
search efforts are needed to discover if we can, in
fact, make a contribution.
Task Design and Performance
Two recent reviews have examined in general
terms the relationship between task design variables
and employee performance postulated by Hackman
and Oldham. Pierce and Dunham summarized 10
studies involving main effects between task design
and performance and 5 additional studies dealing
with interactions among task design and individual
differences and performance. Also included in the
review were studies dealing with other outcome
variables, such as satisfaction and motivation.
Pierce and Dunham concluded that:
The evidence emerging for the main effects in-
vestigations suggests that task designs are more
frequently associatedwith positive affective, be-
havioral,andmotivationalresponsesthanarenar-
rowlydefinedtasks.... Affectiveandmotivational
responses appearto be more strongly related to
task design than are behavioralresponses. Satis-
factionwith work is more strongly relatedto task
designthanareotheraffective,behavioral,or moti-
vationalvariables.... Inallbut one of the investiga-
tions reviewed, evidence suggests improvements
in work-relatedbehaviorassociatedwith expanded
task design. [1976, p. 87]
In a more recent but less thorough review, Mow-
day [1978] argues that despite moderate empirical
support for a task design/performance relationship,
critical questions remain unanswered. He also
notes that even where predicted relationships are
found, the results are often so weak as to be of little
practicalvalue, or subject to alternative explanation.
In summary, the evidence regarding a task
design/performance linkage is still open to debate.
The reviews by Pierce and Dunham and Mowday
essentially raise more questions than they answer.
Furthermore, characteristics of each review limit
their applicability to the task design/performance
question. The Pierce and Dunham paper was a
review of the total body of task design literature.
Hence, specific issues were, of necessity, summar-
ized in brief form. The Mowday paper was prepared
for a symposium at a professional meeting and was,
therefore, superficial in its coverage, owing to
severe space and time constraints. It should also be
noted that a number of relevant studies have
appeared since the last review. Hence, there is a
clear need for a thorough analysis of the literature
pertaining to task design and performance.
Scope of the Review
We limited the literature review to empirical stu-
dies relating perceived task characteristics and em-
ployee performance because (1) many studies do
not measure task design variables or are otherwise
only minimally acceptable in terms of appropriate
research design [Pierce & Dunham, 1976], and (2)
the perceived task design framework has become
the primary research model in the area, and it is
therefore useful to approach the task design/per-
formance issue from this particular perspective.
Hence, to be included in this review, a study had to
(1) include measures of employee perceptions of
tasks and (2) empirically test the degree of associa-
tion between these task perceptions and some
primary facet of employee performance.
Studies to be included were located by two means.
First, all major social science journals published
since 1971 were surveyed (we considered the 1971
Hackman and Lawler study a logical starting point).
This approach identified 67 papers. The majority of
these articles were eventually eliminated from the
review, however, because (1) the article was general-
ly descriptive as opposed to empirical [e.g., Schwab
& Cummings, 1976], (2) the study did not measure
task perceptions [e.g., Robey, 1974], or (3) the
study related task perceptions to affective rather
than behavioral outcomes [e.g., Stone & Porter,
1975]. A total of 11 studies met our two criteria.
A second search procedure entailed contacting
researchers known to be working on task design
issues and asking them for copies of articles in
657
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
progress or in press that would meet our criteria.
This effort yielded one unpublished manuscript by
Pierce [1979]. In addition, one of us had completed a
study, not yet published, that also met the criteria
[Griffin, 1981b]. Hence, a total of 13 studies are
included in the review.
Results of the Review
The primary characteristics of the 13 studies are
summarized in Table 1. In the discussion of the
results, studies will be identified as offering sup-
port, no support, or mixed support for a task charac-
teristics/performance relationship. A study in
which most main effects relationships were positive
and significant will be classified as supportive, one
in which a few positive and significant main effects
relationships or significant mediating effects were
found will be classified as offering mixed support,
and one in which no main or interactive effects
were present, as nonsupportive.
Measures of Task Characteristics
As noted by Pierce and Dunham [1976], the most
widely used measure of perceived task characteris-
tics has been the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS)devel-
oped by Hackman and Oldham [1975]. Of the 7
studies using the JDS, support was found in 3,
mixed support in 1, and no support in 3. A second
measure often used is the Job Characteristic Inven-
tory (JCI) [Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976]. Three
studies in Table 1 report use of the JCI. Two of
these studies provide support for a task character-
istics/performance relationship; the other offers no
support. Finally, of the three studies using the Yale
Job Inventory [Hackman & Lawler, 1971], 2 pro-
vide mixed support and the other provides no sup-
port. Interestingly, no study to date has included
more than one measure of perceived task charac-
teristics, even though such research is clearly
warranted.
Measures of Performance
Because the criterion variable in question-
employee performance-is of such importance,
careful analysis of performance measures used in
the task design studies is essential. These measures
are summarized in Table 2. Even a casual examina-
 Table 1
Summary of Studies Relating Task Characteristics to Performance
Measure of
Task Measure of Mediator(s) Type of Sample Nature of
Study Characteristicsa Performancec Testedd Studye Size Samplef

1. Hackman & Lawler [1971] YJI SE GNS FS 208 HE

2. Wanous [19741 YJI SE GNS FS 80 HO

PWE
RU

3. Hackman & Oldham 11976] JDS SE GNS FS 658 HE

4. Oldham, Haickman, & Pearce [1976] JDS SE GNS FS 201 HO

CS

GNS x CS

5. Sims & Szilaagyi [1976] JCI SE GNS FS 766 HE

LC

6. Umstot, Bell, & Mitchell [1976] JDSb DI GNS LE 42 HO

7. Steers & Spencer [1977] YJI SE NA FS 115 HO

8. Evans, Kiggundu, & House [1979] JDS SR GNS FS 343 HO

NA

9. Orpen [1979] JDSb SE GNS FE 72 HO

DI CS

10. White & Mitchell [1979] JDSb DI None LE 41 HO

11. Griffin [1981a] JCI DI GNS LFS 109 HO

160 HO

12. Griffin [1981b] JCI DI GNS FS 80 HO

13. Pierce [1979] JDS SE None FS 397 HO

aJCI= Job Characteristic Inventory, JDS = Job Diagnostic Survey, YJI= Yale Job Inventory
bUsed as a manipulation check
CSE= Supervisory evaluation, SR = Self-rated, DI = Direct measure of quantity and/or quality
dGNS = Growth need strength, CS = Contextual satisfaction, NA = Need for Achievement, PWE = Protestant Work Ethic, RU = Rural/Urban background,
LC = Locus of Control

658

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Main Interactive
Effectsg Effectsh

6 of 12 correlations between task characteristics and No support for total sample; modest support only for
performance positive and significant high-scope tasks

Main effects not reported No support for any mediating variable; most correla-
tions non-significant'

4 of 5 task characteristics and MPS scores signifi- Correlations for high and low GNS groups different in
cantly correlated with performance predicted direction but differences not significant

MPS and performance significantly correlated Correlations for high and low GNS groups different in
predicted direction but differences not.significant

Correlations for high and low CS groups different in

predicted direction; 1 of 5 pairs significantly different

Correlations for high GNS/high CS and low GNS/low CS

groups all significantly different and in predicted direction

6 of 6 correlations between task characteristics and 3 of 6 pairs of correlations for high and low GNS groups
performance positive and significant different in predicted direction (1 pair significantly
different); remaining 3 pairs of correlations significantly
different in opposite direction

No mediating effects detected

No main effects between task characteristicslMPS and
performance detected
No significant correlations between task characteristics
and performance
5 of 7 correlations between task characteristics/MPS
and performance positive and significant
4 of 6 pairs of correlations for high and low GNS groups
different in predicted direction but differences not
significant; autonomy significantly correlated with
performance for high GNS group
5 of 6 pairs of correlations for high and low Nach groups
significantly different in predicted direction
No mediating effects detected

No significant correlations between task characteristics No mediating effects detected

and performance

No significant relationships found Not applicable

No significant correlations between task characteristics No mediating effects detected

and performance

3 of 4 task characteristics significantly correlated with No mediating effects detected

performance

Significant R obtained with 3 task characteristics regressed Not applicable

on performance

eFS = Field survey, FE = Field experiment, LE = Lab experiment, LFS = Longitudinal field survey
fHE = Heterogeneous, HO = Homogeneous
gLinear relationship between perceived task characteristics and performance
hExtent to which predicted mediator effects were found
'Specific results not presented in article; interpretation based on author's discussion of results

659

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tion of Table 2 reveals that performance has been
measured and defined in a variety of ways. Super-
visory ratings have been used in 8 studies, objective
measures in 5, and self-ratings in 1 (the number of
studies discussed in this section will add to 14,
rather than 13, because Orpen [1979] used 2
measures).
The problems associated with supervisory evalu-
ations of employee performance are well docu-
mented [Cummings & Schwab, 1973; Heneman,
1974; Klimoski & London, 1974]. Specifically, such
ratings often suffer from problems of leniency,
restriction of range, or halo effects. These factors
represent error variance in the performance evalua-
tions. Because measures of perceived task charac-
teristics are also characterized by a certain amount

Table 2
Summary of Performance Measures Used in Task Design Research

Study Performance Labela Method of Measurement

1. Hackman & Lawler [1971] Performance Quantity and quality of work produced measured by 7-point
rating scales completed by supervisor(s); overall performance
effectiveness measured by summing supervisory ratings
across seven separate performance scales (quantity and
quality plus five unspecified variables); all 3 measures used in
data analysis

2. Wanous [1974] Performance Supervisory ratings of employee's quality and quantity of per-
formance were summed and called job performance

3. Hackman & Oldham [1976] Work Performance Supervisory ratings (7-point scales) of effort expended on the
job, work quality, and work quantity were summed and called
work effectiveness

4. Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce Performance Supervisory ratings (5-point scale) of performance effective-
[1976] Effectiveness ness; salary

5. Sims & Szilagyi [1976] Performance Supervisory ratings (5-point scales) of nine performance
dimensions; results either summed or averaged and called job
performance

6. Umstot, Bell, & Mitchell [1976] Job Performance Average number of units produced per hour for one day;
adjusted for set-up and called productivity

7. Steers & Spencer [1977] Performance Supervisory ratings (5-point scale) of overall performance rela-
tive to performance of others

8. Evans, Kiggundu, & House [1979] Performance Self-ratings (5-point scales) of relative performance were
averaged

9. Orpen [1979] Job Performance Supervisory ratings (8-point scale) of general competence

Productivity Average daily output (i.e., quantity) over 6 months

10. White & Mitchell [1979] Productivity Number of units produced divided by total time worked
(i.e., items per minute)

11. Griffin [1981a] Productivity Average daily output (quantity adjusted for set-up time, down
time, and scrappage) for a 10-day period

12. Griffin [1981b] Productivity Average daily output (quantity adjusted for set-up time, down
time, and scrappage) for a 12-month period

13. Pierce [1979] Performance Supervisory ratings (3-point scale) of overall job performance

aRefers to the term used by the author(s) to reflect employee behavior on the job
660

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of error variance, analysis of these data involve
correlating two sets of measures, each of which
contains an unknown amount of variance not
attributable to the phenomena at issue. To illus-
trate the point rather crudely, let us assume that
each measure is characterized by 80 percent true
variance (i.e., variance attributable to construct
validity) and 20 percent error variance. It follows
that the computed correlation may be somewhat
higher or lower than the "real"correlation between
the variables by some proportional amount of error
variance.
This point becomes critical when the studies sum-
marized in Table 2 are considered. Of the 8 studies
using supervisory evaluations of performance, 3
offer support for a task design/performance rela-
tionship, 3 offer mixed support, and 2 offer no sup-
port. Yet, most of the correlations reported in all 8
studies cluster around the levels needed to attain
significance. Correlations tend to be significant at
the .05 level, but seldom at or beyond the .01 level.
On the other hand, many of the nonsignificant
correlations actually approach a level of minimal
significance. Hence, if it were somehow possible to
extract the error variance from either or both of the
measures, the results might be more conclusive.
This problem of error variance is partially over-
come in those studies using direct indices of perfor-
mance. Although a direct measure of performance
may also be deficient in some ways [Cummings &
Schwab, 1973], it would presumably have less error
variance than a supervisory rating. Of the 5 studies
using a direct measure of performance, 1 offers sup-
port and 4 offer no support for a task designlperfor-
mance linkage. Closer scrutiny, however, indicates
that the direct index used in 3 of the studies may not
adequately represent true employee performance.
Umstot, Bell, and Mitchell operationalize perfor-
mance as the average hourly output for 4 hours per
day for 2 days. Mean values of productivity, how-
ever, increased for all groups in the experiment
[1976, p. 391], suggesting that improvements may
have been at least partially attributable to increased
proficiency resulting from the previous day's ex-
perience. Therefore, the validity of the performance
index used by Umstot et al. may be suspect.
In another lab experiment, White and Mitchell
[1979] also used a direct measure of performance:
the number of items completed per minute during a
90-minute period. Mean values of productivity for
661
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
high and low task-scope groups were 4.37 and 4.36,
respectively. One explanation for such similarity
might be that the manner in which the performance
measure was constructed resulted in outcomes that
were independent of task characteristics effects. In-
deed, the results of the study support this possible
explanation. The artificial nature of the lab setting
may have confounded experimental effects to the
extent that the measure of performance lacked
validity.
Apparent weaknesses associated with the per-
formance measure are found in a study by Griffin
[1981a]. This study used a quasi-experimental
design (cross-lagged panel correlations) in a field
setting. The organization that hosted the study
generated a daily index of productivity (quantity of
output adjusted for scrappage, down-time, and set-
up time). Griffin defined performance as a 10-day
average of these daily productivity indices. No sup-
port was found for a task design/performance rela-
tionship. A potential explanation for this finding is
that a 10-day sampling was not sufficient to reflect
long-term employee performance.
The other two studies using direct measures of
performance offer frustratingly contradictory evi-
dence. In probably the best-designed task study to
date, Orpen [1979] measured performance by both
supervisory evaluations and a direct index of out-
put. He found no relationships at all between task
variables and performance. Because of the nature of
this study, considerable confidence in the findings
may be warranted.
However, a second study by Griffin [1981b] also
appears to have a reasonable amount of validity. In a
different plant within the same organization where
the other Griffin study was conducted, a follow-up
was completed approximately one year later. In the
follow-up, employee performance was defined as
the daily productivity index averaged for an entire
year. This time, task perceptions and performance
were positively and significantly correlated. Hence,
this finding reinforces the previous contention that
the original 10-day sampling was not representative.
In summary, then, results appear to be contradic-
tory. One important point that should be noted,
however, is that employee performance has not
been measured in exactly the same way in even two
studies. Consequently, even if results were clear-
cut, we still would be hard pressed to make valid
generalizations.
Mediators
The most commonly tested mediating variable,
growth need strength (GNS), has been investigated
in 10 studies. Contextual satisfaction and need for
achievement have been investigated twice, and sev-
eral other variables only once each. Overall, results
are not particularly supportive of the individual dif-
ference perspective. Although some studies found
differences in the predicted directions, few differen-
ces were statistically significant. Therefore, little
support exists for an interactive relationship be-
tween task and individual variables and employee
performance. (Another issue pertaining to mediat-
ing variables relates to statistical problems in data
analysis. Fordetails, see Peters & Champoux [1979].)
Type of Study
Ten of the 13 studies in Table 1 are field surveys.
Of these surveys, 5 offer support, 3 mixed support,
and 2 no support for a task design/performance
relationship. The remaining 3 studies are experimen-
tal in nature, and all offer no support. In summary,
then, reasonable support is obtained from field sur-
veys, but not from experimental studies. Implica-
tions of this observation will be discussed later.
Sample Characteristics
Sample sizes range from 41 to 766, and are char-
acterized by extremes of both heterogeneity and
homogeneity. No discernible pattern of results can
be detected when studies are compared along these
dimensions. The only observation of potential im-
portance is that 10 of the 13 samples are essentially
homogeneous. Of the 3 studies based on hetero-
geneous samples, all provide at least mixed support
for a task design/performance relationship. How-
ever, since heterogeneous data bases might be char-
acterized as having more error variance, these
results must be interpreted with caution.
Summary
One of the stated objectives of this review was to
determine why research on the task design/perfor-
mance linkage has been so inconclusive. Based on
this examination of the research literature, two
generalizations appear to be warranted. First, the
available studies, with few exceptions, are charac-
terized by performance measures that are at best
only moderately valid and meaningful and at worst
662
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
potentially invalid and meaningless. Second, indi-
vidual difference variables have not been shown to
be a major factor in the task design/performance
relationship. Perhaps one primary explanation for
problems of interpretability is that measurement
deficiencies are of such magnitude that they consid-
erably confound the results reported. Hence, a
clear-cut outline of future research needs is impor-
tant if the issue is to ever to be resolved.
Future ResearchNeeds and Directions
First, a more precise formulation of task design
and performance interrelationships is needed. The
performance variable itself needs to be more fully
explicated in terms of its various components
(quantity, quality, effort, etc.) and appropriate
techniques for measuring these components de-
scribed. Each component should then be tied to
specific task characteristics from a theoretical point
of view. For example, feedback seems likely to have
a positive effect on work quality, whereas the
effects of identity on quantity might be less pro-
nounced. (These examples are pure conjecture and
are offered only to illustrate the point.) What is
needed is a theoretical framework linking task
scope and performance, with each variable viewed
from a multidimensional perspective.
Second, causal priorities among variables need
both theoretical and empirical clarification. In gen-
eral, the presumption is made that task design is an
independent variable and that performance is a
dependent variable. However, an alternate expla-
nation might be that the linkages are reversed. For
example, high-performing employees may be given
more autonomy by their supervisors. The em-
ployees, in turn, may not be able to differentiate
between sources of autonomy and, therefore, may
perceive more task autonomy. Similarly, by focus-
ing more attention on the task itself as a necessary
antecedent for high performance, employees may
develop a better feel for how the task relates to
others and may perceive more identity as a result.
This possibility of reverse causality is supported by
the fact that many of the cross-sectional field sur-
veys summarized in Table 1 provide evidence for
correlational relationships, whereas the experi-
mental studies do not.
Third, organization context variables [Oldham &
Hackman, 1980] must be integrated with the study
of task design variables if meaningful proportions
of performance variance are to be explained. It is
unlikely that task design, or any other narrowly
defined set of organizational variables, ever ac-
counts for more than a comparatively small
amount of performance variance. More likely, per-
formance is a function of a complex set of individual
variables (e.g., motivation, experience, ability),
group variables (e.g., performance norms, cohe-
sion), and organizational variables (e.g., task
design, structure, technology). This call for inte-
gration is not new; others have been arguing the
same point for years. Pierce and Dunham [19761
identified integrative research as an important
need. We concur.
These three issues are all related to construct
validity. As noted recently by Schwab [1980], a use-
ful distinction can be made between substantive
research and construct validation research. Schwab
also accurately notes that "substantive relative to
construct validation research has been overempha-
sized in organizational behavior" [p. 4]. The task
design literature is no exception. All of the studies
reviewed earlier fall into the substantive category;
few construct validation studies are available. Yet,
construct validation must clearly precede substan-
tive research if knowledge is to be advanced.
Construct validation of the task design/perfor-
mance issue should focus on theoretical explication,
clarification, and measurement of multidimensional
conceptualizations of tasks and of essential em-
ployee task-related behaviors. Next, each construct
should be framed within its appropriate organiza-
tional context. That is, relationships among task
design and performance constructs and other rele-
vant organizational variables should be assessed
(theoretically and then empirically). In the nomen-
clature of construct validity, it is imperative to
REFERENCES
Cummings, L.L.; & Schwab, D.P. Performancein organizations:
Determinants and appraisal. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman,
1973.
Evans, M.G.; Kiggundu, M.N. & House, R.J. A partial test and
extension of the job characteristic model of motivation. Or-
ganizational Behavior& Human Performance,1979, 24, 354-381.
Griffin, R.W. A longitudinal investigation of task characteris-
tics relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24,
99-113. (a)
663
This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
specify the nomological network [Schwab, 1980] of
each construct.
Once these two steps have been taken, attention
can then appropriately be refocused on substantive
research issues. Specifically, the extent of covaria-
tion and direction of causality among the two nomo-
logically described constructs can then be investi-
gated with a more precise scientific foundation and
a clearer understanding.
From a research point of view, future directions
then become much more obvious. Validation work
on both the task design and performance constructs
would involve field and laboratory research aimed
at (1) identifying and describing relevant attributes
of each, (2) explicating interactions among the
attributes, and (3) developing better devices and
techniques for measuring each construct. Con-
comitantly, better understanding of the nomologi-
cal networks could be gained by: (1) theoretical
analysis and (2) laboratory and cross-sectional field
studies aimed at determining other covariates.
The return to substantive research could progress
through three phases. Phase 1 would involve rigor-
ous, tightly controlled laboratory experimentation
aimed at (1) determining directions of causality and,
(2) determining interconstruct attribute combina-
tions. Phase 2 would focus on cross-sectional field
surveys in order to establish the external validity of
laboratory findings. Phase 3 would include experi-
mentation in the field to determine the practicaland
scientific significance of the task design construct in
influencing employee performance. If organiza-
tional behavior as a field of research is to mature,
there must be movement toward research pro-
grams rather than isolated studies, and professional
and organizational support for the integration of
research efforts.
Griffin, R.W. Perceived task characteristicsand employee pro-
ductivity and satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the Academy of Management, San Diego, 1981. (b)
Hackman, J.R. Work design. In J.R. Hackman & J.L. Suttle
(Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approachesto
organizationalchange. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1977.
Hackman, J.R.;& Lawler, E. Employee reactions to job charac-
teristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,1971, 55, 259-286.
Hackman, J.R.;& Oldham, G.R. Development of the Job Diag-
nostic Survey. Journalof Applied Psychology,1975, 60, 159-170. 1978, 2 1, 123-128.

Hackman, J.R.; & Oldham, G.R. Motivation through the de- Pierce, J.L. Technologyandjobdesign:An exploratoryexamination
sign of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior & of employeeabsenteeism,performance,and work satisfaction. Un-
Human Performance,1976, 16, 250-279. published manuscript, University of Minnesota - Duluth, 1979.

Hackman, J.R.; & Oldham, G.R. Work redesign. Reading, Productivity: An elusive essential. Chicago Tribune, Sep-
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980. tember 16, 1979, p. 18.

Heneman, H.G. Comparisons of self- and superior-ratings of Robey, D. Task design, work values, and worker response: An
managerial performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,1974, experimental test. Organizational Behavior & Human Perfor-
59, 638-642. mance, 1974, 12, 264-273.

Hulin, C.L.; & Blood, M.R. Job enlargement, individual differ- Schwab, D.P. Construct validity in organizational behavior.
ences, and worker responses. PsychologicalBulletin, 1968, 69, In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Researchin organizational
41-55. behavior(Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980.

Klimoski, R.J.;& London, M. Role of the rater in performance
appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology,1974, 59, 445-451.
Mowday, R.T. Task characteristics and behavioral outcomes.
Proceedingsof theAmericanInstituteforDecisionSciences,1978, 168.
Oldham, G.R.; & Hackman, J.R. Work design in the organiza-
tional context. In B.M. Staw & L.L.Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI
Press, 1980.
Sims, H.P.; & Szilagyi, A.D. Job characteristic relationships:
Individual and structural moderators. Organizational Behavior
& Human Performance,1976, 17, 211-230.
Sims, J.P.; Szilagyi, A.D.; & Keller, R.T. The measurement of
job characteristics. Academy of ManagementJournal, 1976, 19,
195-212.
Steers, R.; & Spencer, D. The role of achievement motivation
in job design. Journalof Applied Psychology,1977, 62,472-479.

Oldham, G.R.; Hackman, J.; & Pearce, J. Conditions under Stone, E.F.; & Porter, L.W. Job characteristics and job atti-
which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal tudes: A multivariate study. Journal of Applied Psychology,
of Applied Psychology,1976, 61, 395-403. 1975, 60, 57-64.

Orpen, C. The effects of job enrichment on employee satisfac-
tion, motivation, involvement, and performance: A field experi-
ment. Human Relations, 1979, 32, 189-217.
Peters, W.S.; & Champoux, J.E. The role of moderator vari-
ables in organizational research. In R.T. Mowday & R.M.
Steers (Eds.), Research in organizations:Issues and controversies.
Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1979.
Turner, A.; & Lawrence, P. Industrial jobs and the worker.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
Umstot, D.; Bell, C.; & Mitchell, T. Effects of job enrichment
and task goals on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for
job design. Journal of Applied Psychology,1976, 61, 379-394.
Vroom, V.H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Pierce, J.L.;& Dunham, R.B. Task design: A literature review. Wanous, J. Individual differences and reactions to job charac-
Academy of Management Review, 1976, 1(4), 83-97. teristics. Journal of Applied Psychology,1974, 59, 616-622.

Pierce, J.L.; & Dunham, R.B. The measurement of perceived White, S.E.; & Mitchell, T.R. Job enrichment versus social
job characteristics: The Job Diagnostic Survey versus the Job cues: A comparison and competitive test. Journal of Applied
Characteristics Inventory. Academy of Management Journal, Psychology,1979, 64, 1-9.

Ricky W. Griffin is Assistant Professor of Management in the

College of Business Administration of Texas A&M University,
CollegeStation.
Ann Welsh is a doctoralcandidatein the Departmentof Manage-
ment, Collegeof Businessand Public Administration, University of
Missouri at Columbia.

Gregory Moorhead is Assistant Professorof Management in the

College of Business Administration of Arizona State University,
Tempe.
Received 4/7/80
664

This content downloaded from 121.52.157.189 on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 10:39:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions