Organizational Behaviour

Assignment 1
Submitted to-

Dr. Smruti Patre

Associate Professor
Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Nagpur

Title of the Assignment

Job Design-Characteristics

Submitted by-
Shweta Korde (PRN: 21021241148)
Shyamali Chatterjee (PRN: 21021241191)
Shubham Arora (PRN: 21021241147)

(MBA Batch 2021-23)

Symbiosis Institute of Business Management, Nagpur

Submitted on-

17/01/2022
Facts of the Case:
a) Shreya has been working in a specialized and narrow field of Information Technology, she has acquired most
of her skills on the job and has risen to a high level in a large organization.
b) The nature of her work can mean she has as many as 5 “bosses” to answer to. Due to the nature of her work,
she has been highly compensated but has extremely low job motivation and high job dissatisfaction.
c) Company 1 offers her a position that would utilize similar skills to her current position that are more
business-oriented than technology-oriented. Company 1’s position would be in “middle management”
where she would be supervising the work of others in the service of those above her organizationally.
Company 1’s job requirements, if successful, would improve the processes in a specific department and help
it meet its goals.
d) Company 2 offers her a position that would require skills she does not yet possess and would encompass a
large range of new responsibilities. Company 2’s position is pitched as entrepreneurial, and ownership of
tasks is highly valued and encouraged. Company 2, Shreya’s job parlays directly into the company’s ability to
earn new business and pay its employees. Failure to adequately perform her job could mean the company
cannot meet its financial obligations and this would put a lot of pressure onto her role. Company 2 has the
same expectations, but the corporate culture is more flexible to work hours and location.
e) Shreya values regular performance reviews and salary evaluations and feels that Company 1, which has been
established for 20 years and has a solid revenue stream, will be more organized in career planning and
feedback. Shreya knows Company 2 does not have any procedures in place for formal feedback but she
would be working closely with the owners.

f) After careful consideration of these different criteria, Shreya chooses to go with Company 2, even though it
poses greater risk to job stability. The entrepreneurial spirit of the organization is highly appealing, as what
Shreya wants the most is the ability to take responsibility for her tasks and to make a direct impact on a
company’s success. In her previous job she felt like a white-collar factory worker and at Company 2 she
would be key player in the direction the company grows. Shreya also has personal goals and values the
flexible work atmosphere and autonomy at Company 2.
g) So, Shreya accepts the offer at Company 2 with a 50% salary reduction. Shreya is satisfied and happy with
her position. She is learning new things and is motivated to explore other areas of the company. such as
payroll and public relations. Company 2 has emerged as the best choice Lenora could have made between
the options.

Conceptual Analysis:
Here while Shreya has to make a decision among the both 2 Job roles, as we can know from the case that previous
job which Shreya was engaged is dissatisfactory, now while choosing then Satisfaction plays a key role.

Job Design is a psychological theory of motivation that is defined as the systematic and purposeful allocation of
tasks to groups and individuals within an organization. The five core characteristics of job design are skill variety, task
identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback. Including these characteristics in your jobs affects the
following work-related outcomes — motivation, satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and turnover.

As this theory relates to the case study presented herein, the five core job dimensions (skill variety, task identity,
task significance, autonomy and job feedback) are all necessary components to an individual's degree of motivation
within the workplace. Furthermore, the emotional reactions of an individual related to the core job dimensions
produces critical psychological states which further impact performance and motivation outcomes. Individuals who
receive constructive job feedback while experiencing a degree of autonomy are expected to exhibit improved
productivity and responsibility respectively. The following case study examines “Shreya’s” decision to leave her
previous employer and weigh two different employment opportunities as they relate to the job characteristics
theory. In addition to the choice between opportunities, Shreya must make a decision to take a potential pay cut in
exchange for what looks to be more motivating and fulfilling work.
Job Significance:
It refers to an employee's perception of their work's value to people around them. This is a crucial feature since it
indicates how much she can influence others. a worker who requires a high level of task significance. She was unable
to fulfil her personal ideas and interests at her prior career, prompting her to shift jobs. The first company promised
her a more secure and risk-free managerial position. The entrepreneurial spirit of the second company allows her to
be in charge of her own tasks. appreciates the freedom of examining various risks of business contracts, as well as
additional difficulties that allow her to contribute to the company's future success as a vital member of the team.

Job Identity:
It refers to the employees' sense of task accomplishment from beginning to end. Task identity means the extent to
which a job involves completing an identifiable piece of work from start to finish, with a visible outcome. Motivated
employees will be more likely to complete tasks if they identify with them and have seen them through from start to
finish. It’s the ability to start a process and see it through to completion. In her prior career, she had a moderate to
high level of task identity. Company 1 provided a more specialised position than Company 2. Despite the risks,
Shreya handled all of her obligations with exceptional abilities and confidence. Shreya achieves a high level of task
and Job identification in Company 2, which she chose after considerable study, by learning new skills and exploring
new areas. She is offered the opportunity to learn about a new field because she is a good employee.
 Freedom at
Skillset Job Identity
workplace

Job
Feedback
Significance
Skillset:
Refers to the variety of activities and abilities that an employee can utilize to finish a task. You can introduce more
skill variety to your roles through job shadowing opportunities and extended learning courses, or by encouraging
cross-collaboration with other teams in your organization. When faced with a decision between two companies, she
believes Company 1 is nearly identical to her prior employment, where she was unable to follow her personal
interests. As a result, she would be unable to employ her abilities to complete tasks. She chose Company 2 because
it allows her to be a vital role. She has the ability to participate in key choices affecting the company's destiny.

Freedom of Execution at Workplace:

 Autonomy is the freedom of actions that an individual has in their workplace and the ability to create and
manipulate their own schedules. Company 1 has a higher degree of structure than Company 2; therefore, company 2
due to its flexible time and location schedule compared to Company 1's strict daily schedule. Autonomy is one of the
most important job components for Lenora. Autonomy is the freedom of actions that an individual has in their
workplace and the ability to create and manipulate their own schedules (Lawrence, 2001).  Company 1 has a higher
degree of structure than Company 2; therefore, Lenora favours company 2 due to its flexible time and location
schedule compared to Company 1's strict daily schedule.  

Employee Feedback:
It refers to the extent to which an employee receives clear information about whether or not their work is
successful. The extent to which a job is important to and impacts others within and outside of the organization is
known as task significance. In fact, 79% of employees who quit their jobs claim that a lack of appreciation was a
major reason for leaving. Because Company 1 was well-established and well-known for coordinating career planning,
it was able to provide such feedback. Company 2 lacks job feedback but gives Shreya a sense of importance because
she will be working closely with the company's proprietors. Job feedback was not a significant factor for Shreya. She
opts for Company 2.

Situational Analysis:
The personal work results as perceived by the worker are one of the fundamental parts of the Job Design Theory.
"When employees experience meaningfulness, responsibility, and knowledge of results," "they should be more
motivated, satisfied, and productive, as well as less absent and less inclined to resign”. Other beneficial job
consequences include increased ownership, intrinsic motivation, and growth satisfaction. Poor work design, on the
other hand, can result in a loss of commitment, increased turnover and absenteeism, as well as mental fatigue.

Motivational Potential Score (MPS)= skill set + Job significance + Job Identity/3) * Freedom at workplace* feedback
Shreya has had a lot of skill diversity in her new capacity, and she has a lot of experience that she was able to use to
this new role well. She also values the importance of her work, as seen by her additional responsibilities, which
include aiding the chief executives and public relations departments. She also enjoys task autonomy as a result of
her capacity to work off-site and create her own schedules of chores to complete.

While much of the analysis focuses on the job aspects that influenced Shreya's decision, the remaining factor of
individual differences has yet to be investigated. The growth need strength notion is based on the hypothesis that
"only certain types of people would respond positively to" occupations with high job design theory features.
Individual differences in the "need for fulfilment of higher-order wants such as success, personal growth, and self-
actualization". Those who have worked in jobs with high scores in each of the key job characteristics, resulting in the
critical psychological states and personal work.

As one of the studies of Lawrence done on Job Characteristics Theory (2001) shows, the highest scores are for the
degree of freedom, independence, and ability to work close with colleagues. Shreya appreciates the flexible nature
of scheduling in company 2. She also loves the fact that she is highly appreciated, and as a consequence, she can
work closely with the owners of the company. She expands her responsibilities by getting an offer to acquire new
skills. She sees herself as a valuable employee; she can control payroll and communication for the CEO. Numerous
studies suggest that perceptions of task characteristics work as background of affective reactions (Saavedra & Kwun,
2000).

Growth Need Strength

While much of the current analysis looks at the job characteristics that lead Lenora to choose Company 2, the
remaining factor of individual differences behind her decision has yet to be examined. Hackman and Oldham (1976)
discussed this via the concept of growth need strength, based on the conjecture that “only certain types of people
would respond well to” jobs high in job design theory characteristics. Growth need strength or GNS explains
individual variances in the “need for fulfilment of higher-order needs such as achievement, personal growth, and
self-actualization”. Those who experience positions scoring high in each of the core job dimensions, leading to the
named critical psychological states, resulting in the personal work outcomes designated by Job Characteristics
Theory show a high level of GNS. Shreya demonstrates that she has a high level of GNS based on her choice of
Company 2, because her experience with this company follows these prescribed relationships. 

Evaluation and Development of Job Theory

Early Job Design theories found little empirical support. However, as refinement continued, the job characteristics
theory of Oldham and Hackman found considerably more support in empirical research.  The current state of the
theory and supporting research find that, while generally supported), some elements are more supported than
others. Specifically, the components of job characteristics theory all have some relation to improved job
satisfaction; additionally, some components have a higher correlation than others. 

One important development of job theory that came about as a component of job characteristics theory is the
concept of Growth Need Strength, which is discussed in detail above. This improvement is significant in that it
conceptualized the reasons some individuals react differently to job characteristic changes than do other individuals.
Another significant improvement is the concept of Motivation Potential Score.  This is discussed above as well.  This
score is a calculated rating or index of how a job can potentially motivate an individual.  Two individuals may react to
job characteristics differently, so it was important for the theory to account for this.  These two important
improvements to the theory have led to greater empirical support over time.

However, some finer points to this theory do remain in question.  That is, while job characteristics correlate with job
satisfaction, their correlation with job performance is not as clear. With the current state of the theory there are
issues with causality and generalizability.  It is unclear whether job conditions truly result in job satisfaction and job
performance or whether the relation is more complex. It is also unclear how well the model translates between
different cultural applications. 
Another concern of the current theory is that the nature of work does evolve and is in a state of flux; the
characteristics of our jobs can change in fundamental ways (industrial revolution, telecommuting, etc.). The question
remains on how this evolution has impacted the relevance of the job design theories (or at least, their component
parts) as they have evolved through the years. 

Conclusion:
The Job Theory concepts must be applied to Shreya's decision-making in this scenario. Her yearning for
independence appeared to surpass her desire for criticism. Henceforth Shreya has to choose Company2.Shreya's
decision to work for the second company demonstrates her aspirational nature. While it is impossible to say for sure,
to improve both as an individual and with the firm. It's also worth noting that a motivating potential score can vary
depending on the profession and the individual. Furthermore, the general need for strength differs from person to
person, therefore selection may not have been the same as someone else's.

Other notions within the five fundamental job components undoubtedly must be considered and her motivation, as
each item does not have to have a positive impact on the worker. Individuals who receive constructive job
evaluation while also having some autonomy are likely to have higher productivity and responsibility. Shreya was
unconcerned about the need for feedback, preferring instead to focus on being able to work closely with the owners
of Company 2, as well as the increased autonomy, task importance, and skill variety.

Shreya's decision-making in this case was strongly influenced by the concepts in the Job Characteristics Theory. Her
desire for autonomy seemed to outweigh her need for feedback. Shreya's ultimate choice to work for the second
company exhibits her ambitious attitude. While it cannot be said for certain, it is expected that Shreya would score
very high on a GNS scale, a direct reflection of her individual desire to grow both as an individual and with the
company. It should also be noted that a motivational potential score could be different for each job as it applies to
each individual. Furthermore, the general needs strength varies from person to person where the decision Lenora
made for herself may not have been the decision another would have made in their situation.

Other concepts within the five core job components surely affected her motivation as it is not essential that each
aspect influences the worker in a positive manner. Individuals who receive constructive job feedback while
experiencing a degree of autonomy are expected to exhibit improved productivity and responsibility respectively.
Shreya placed less importance upon the need for feedback and seemed content to be able to work closely with the
owners of Company 2 in addition to the increase in autonomy, task significance and skill variety.

Shreya's decision on the basis of Job Characteristics theory: one's work must be exciting in order for one's
performance and motivation to be high. As a result, her need for excitement eclipsed the large wage reduction she
took when she left her previous position. As a result, there is evidence that Job Design Theories are founded on the
concept of motivation by the activities that a job demands, rather than external motivators like monetary
remuneration or bonuses.

Shreya's decision embraced the main idea of Job Characteristics theory: one's work must be interesting in order for
performance and motivation to be high. Her desire for interest, thus, overshadowed the significant pay cut she took
in her choice to leave her former employer. Consequently, the evidence is provided that Job Design Theories are
based in the concept of motivation by the tasks that a job requires rather than through external motivators, such as
monetary compensation or benefits.