Q053 Wegman 2016

654545
research-article2016
JOMXXX10.1177/0149206316654545Journal of ManagementWegman et al. / Changing Nature of Work Characteristics
Journal of Management
Vol. 44 No. 1, January 2018 352–386
DOI: 10.1177/0149206316654545
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Placing Job Characteristics in Context: Cross-

Temporal Meta-Analysis of Changes in Job
Characteristics Since 1975
Lauren A. Wegman
Brian J. Hoffman
Nathan T. Carter
University of Georgia
Jean M. Twenge
San Diego State University
Nigel Guenole
Goldsmiths University of London
Despite frequent references to “the changing nature of work,” little empirical research has
investigated proposed changes in work context perceptions. To address this gap, this study uses
a cross-temporal meta-analysis to examine changes in five core job characteristics (e.g., task
identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy, and feedback from the job) as well as
changes in the relationship between job characteristics and job satisfaction. An additional
analysis of primary data is used to examine changes in two items related to interdependence.
On average, workers perceived greater levels of skill variety and autonomy since 1975 and
interdependence since 1985. In contrast, the results of a supplemental meta-analysis did not
support significant changes in the association between the five core job characteristics and
satisfaction over time. Thus, although there is some evidence for change in job characteristics,
the findings do not support a change in the value placed on enriched work. Implications for
researchers and organizations navigating the modern world of work are highlighted.
Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Patrick M. Wright. The authors would like to
acknowledge Lillian Eby and Ron Piccolo for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article and Amber
Davidson, Danielle Eaton, Matt Griffith, Lindsey Griffin, Thieu Ha, Shelby Hughes, Lauren Locklear, Anna Lorys,
and Jorge Lumbreras for their assistance with data collection. Lauren Wegman is currently employed by Yahoo,
Inc. An earlier version of Study 1 was presented as Lauren Wegman’s Master’s Thesis at the University of Georgia
under the supervision of Brian Hoffman.
Supplemental material for this article is available with the manuscript on the JOM website.
Corresponding author: B. Hoffman, University of Georgia, 313 Psychology Building, Athens, GA 30606, USA.
E-mail: hoffmanb@uga.edu
352
Wegman et al. / Changing Nature of Work Characteristics 353
Keywords: job characteristics; changing nature of work; skill variety; autonomy; task sig-
nificance; task identity; feedback; interdependence; job satisfaction; cross-tempo-
ral meta-analysis
“The changing nature of work” has received considerable attention among management
scholars (Howard, 1995), business leaders (Maney, 2009), and the popular press (Godin,
2009). Some suggest that technology has ushered in a new industrial revolution—the age of
digitalization (National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Others propose that the line between
work and nonwork has blurred (Allan, Loudoun, & Peetz, 2007; Patterson, 2001), with tradi-
tional jobs and work hours replaced by fluid work roles and flexible schedules (Davis, 1995;
Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999). According to Oldham and Hackman (2010: 465), “the world of
work is now different than it was then, perhaps fundamentally so.” Indeed, assumed changes
in the nature of work are often explicitly referenced as rationale for the importance of study-
ing a variety of organizational phenomenon, such as: person-organization fit (Caldwell,
Herold, & Fedor, 2004), organizational commitment (Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe, 2008),
changes in selection systems (Murphy, 1999), alternations in performance assessment
(Motowidlo & Schmit, 1999), organizational citizenship behaviors (Randall, Cropanzano,
Borman, & Birjulin, 1999), as well as job design (Grant, Fried, Parker, & Frese, 2010).
Yet, scarce empirical research has sought to substantiate proposed changes (National
Academy of Sciences, 1999). Much of the extant literature is anecdotal (e.g., Canton, 2006)
or reflects sociological/macroeconomic interpretations of the underlying causes of presumed
changes (e.g., changes in technology, globalization, or the workers themselves) rather than
direct measures of psychological change from the perspective of workers using constructs
common to the management literature. This is unfortunate, as work context is thought to
underlie organizational behavior and attitudes (Johns, 2006), and therefore any changes to
work context could necessitate changes in talent management processes. From this perspec-
tive, documenting changes in work context is critical to understanding how, if at all, talent
management approaches should be adapted for 21st-century work. The current article repre-
sents the first empirical analysis of changes in employees’ perceptions of work characteris-
tics. We address this question in three studies.
First, cross-temporal meta-analysis (Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2011; Twenge & Im,
2007) is employed to provide an empirical analysis of changes in the constructs included in
Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) job characteristics model (JCM) since 1975 in studies using
the associated measure of job characteristics, the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). By summariz-
ing means from the population of available studies and examining change in means over time,
cross-temporal meta-analysis affords robust and generalizable inferences relative to single
sample comparisons (Twenge, 2011; Twenge & Campbell, 2010). Using cross-temporal meta-
analysis, we investigate whether (a) mean-level perceptions of the five core job characteristics
have changed over time, (b) changes differ across occupational groups, and (c) mean-level
changes in job characteristics differ for samples with a higher proportion of females.
In the second study, we examine two items related to social context using a large primary
sample. Despite the popularity of the JCM, many authors (Grant, Fried, & Juillerat, 2011;
Grant & Parker, 2009; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), including its creators,
have acknowledged that the original formulation of the JCM is deficient in describing the
modern work context (Oldham & Hackman, 2010). Specifically, the JCM does not include
354 Journal of Management / January 2018
variables relevant to social context (Grant, Fried, & Juillerat, 2011; Grant & Parker, 2009;
Humphrey et al., 2007), such as the interpersonal aspects, interactions, and social structure of
work (Johns, 2006). To allow for an analysis of social context, we located primary data to
supplement our cross-temporal meta-analysis. Two items regarding the cooperation of
coworkers and the provision of support from outside workgroups from a large national data-
base (i.e., WorkTrendsTM employee opinion database; Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley, 2010) are
used to assess changes in interdependence between 1985 and 2011.
In the third study, we use psychometric meta-analysis to examine changes in the relation-
ship between job satisfaction and the five core job characteristics. Whereas the first two
studies are useful in understanding changes in employee perceptions of the job characteris-
tics, this meta-analysis will be useful to examine changes in workers themselves. The asso-
ciation between the five core job characteristics and job satisfaction is well established
(Humphrey et al., 2007). However, to the extent that these associations have changed over
time, evidence would be provided that job characteristics are differentially valued by respon-
dents in more recent years.
In light of the evidentiary and theoretical basis substantiating context as a focal deter-
minant of employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Bamberger, 2008; Dierdorff & Ellington,
2008; Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2007; Dierdorff, Rubin, & Morgeson, 2009; Fried, Grant,
Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007; Hackman, 2003; Johns, 2001, 2006; Juillerat, 2010;
Morgeson, Dierdorff, & Hmurovic, 2010; Morgeson, Johnson, Campion, Medsker, &
Mumford, 2006), a clearer understanding of changes in perceptions of the work context
has several potential implications for organizations, managers, and management research-
ers. Given that human behavior is a function of the interaction between the employee and
their environment (Lewin, 1951), identifying changes in employees’ perceptions of con-
text can provide insight into potential trends in employee attitudes and behaviors and
clearly focus researchers on specific contexts that require integration into theory (Johns,
2006). Similarly, focusing attention on key contextual changes is critical to the develop-
ment of strategies to help organizations navigate the changing nature of work (Rousseau
& Fried, 2001; Ryan, Schmitt, & Johnson, 1996). Moreover, doing so using a large-scale
analysis, including meta-analysis and a large national dataset, enhances the applicability
of these insights across areas of inquiry.
Proposed Changes in Work and Workers

Johns’ (2006) model of work context proposes that the omnibus context (e.g., techno-
logical advances, globalization, flattened organizational hierarchies) shapes the local, or
discrete, context (e.g., task characteristics, social characteristics), which in turn shapes
employee attitudes and behaviors. Time is an informative omnibus context variable because
it provides “a surrogate for environmental stimuli occurring when the research is conducted”
(Johns, 2006: 392). Omnibus contextual trends are routinely highlighted to explain pre-
dicted changes in work context and in workers themselves. Indeed, similar time-based
changes in omnibus context such as “globalization, communication and information tech-
nology, [and] economics” (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010: 235) are commonly invoked to pre-
dict both changes in discrete context (e.g., Fried et al., 2007; George & Jones, 2000;
Mitchell, 1997) and changes in worker characteristics (e.g., Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010;
Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010).
Changes in workers. Management research investigating changes in organizationally

relevant variables has almost exclusively focused on changes in workers (e.g., Cennamo
& Gardner, 2008; Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012; Hansen & Leuty, 2012;
Twenge et al., 2010). Both popular and academic sources have proposed that employees
increasingly value the opportunity for individual growth, skill development, flexibility, voice
in important organizational decisions, and time spent completing significant and meaningful
work (e.g., Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003; Fonner & Stache,
2012; Grant, 2007; Inkson, 2008; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Strauss & Howe, 2000; Twenge
et al., 2010; Winograd & Hais, 2011). In essence, this research proposes that mean workforce
values have shifted toward a desire for more enriched work (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010;
Strauss & Howe, 2000; Winograd & Hais, 2011).
These propositions are consistent with a supplies-values (S-V) perspective on person-
environment (P-E) fit, where fit is a function of the extent to which organizations, vocations,
and jobs supply the employee with valued work characteristics and rewards (Cummings &
Cooper, 1979; Edwards, 1992; French, Caplan, & Harrison, 1982). To the degree that worker
values have changed, the S-V fit perspective proposes that organizations should “create job
offerings and work environments that are more likely to engage and retain millennial work-
ers” (E. Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010: 281). In other words, changes in worker values
should be used to inform organizations how to change organization and job characteristics
(Hansen & Leuty, 2012; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Swanberg 2005; Swanberg & Simmons,
2008) because these changes in values impact satisfaction (Locke, 1976). Two conditions are
implicit in the S-V fit interpretation of the changing nature of work. First, employee values
reflect a shift toward more enriched jobs in more recent years. Second, because of the pro-
posed shift in workforce values, enriched jobs are expected to be more satisfying in more
recent years. In the third study, we report a meta-analysis of changes in the relationship
between the core job characteristics and job satisfaction to determine if enriched work is
more satisfying to workers in recent years.
Changes in work. Work context has been defined as “situational opportunities and con-
straints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behavior as well as functional
relationships between variables” (Johns, 2006: 386). Similar to alleged changes in workers,
temporal changes in omnibus context are routinely invoked when proposing changes to the
discrete work context (e.g., Cappelli et al., 1997; Grant & Parker, 2009; Howard, 1995;
National Academy of Sciences, 1999; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001). For instance, omnibus
changes in globalization, increased competition, and the rise of the knowledge-based indus-
try are often implicated in changes in discrete work context (e.g., Fried, Levi, & Laurence,
2008; Grant et al., 2010; Grant & Parker, 2009; Juillerat, 2010; Oldham & Hackman, 2010;
O’Toole & Lawler, 2006; Parker et al., 2001).
Proposed changes in context are more consistent with demands-abilities (D-A) P-E fit
(Dierdorff et al., 2009; Edwards, 1996; Kristof, 1996), where fit is a function of the worker’s
ability to meet contextual demands. Specifically, whereas S-V fit processes are thought to be
driven by employee values, D-A fit processes are thought to be driven by contextual demands
(Livingstone, Nelson, & Barr, 1997). When discussing the changing nature of work, work
context researchers typically emphasize the influence of proposed contextual changes on the
knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed to perform effectively, whereas generational
research recommends changing organizational structure and processes on the basis of chang-
ing employee values. In this way, the overarching implication of the D-A fit perspective is
that segments of the workforce with the requisite KSAs to meet changing contextual demands
will be increasingly competitive (Kichuk & Wiesner, 1998; Latham & Sue-Chan, 1998;
Stevens & Campion, 1994) and that organizations should actively target individuals with
these KSAs. In Study 1, we use cross-temporal meta-analysis to examine the extent to which
perceptions of job characteristics have changed since 1975; and in Study 2, we examine
whether perceptions of interdependence have changed over time using a large-scale primary
study.
Study 1: Changes in the Core Job Characteristics

According to the JCM, levels of the five core job characteristics (task identity, task signifi-
cance, skill variety, feedback, and autonomy) act as a gauge for the motivational enrichment
of jobs (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). We focus on the JCM for a few reasons. First, the cor-
responding JDS measure is among the oldest measures of job characteristic perceptions and
“remains the dominant model of job design today” (Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011: 421).
The continued popularity of this framework and measure provides a large database and a
standardized measure with which to examine the temporal changes needed to provide gener-
alizable inferences (Konrath et al., 2011; Twenge, 2011; Twenge & Im, 2007). Second, past
research has frequently and explicitly proposed changes in the core job characteristics (e.g.,
Fried et al., 2007, 2008; Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Parker et al., 2001), yet there has been
no empirical substantiation of these propositions. The JCM will be useful in the examination
of changes in work context perceptions because of the popularity of this model and measure
and the relevance of these characteristics to outcomes (Humphrey et al., 2007). In addition to
the pragmatic value, work context researchers have explicitly adopted the JCM as a frame-
work when proposing contextual changes, supporting the relevance of the JCM in examining
changes. Below we describe temporal changes in the omnibus context proposed to yield
increases in each of the five discrete core job characteristics.
Task identity. Task identity is described as “the degree to which the job requires com-
pletion of a ‘whole’ and identifiable piece of work—that is, doing a job from beginning
to end with a visible outcome” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975: 161). Changes in the omni-
bus context such as globalization, the shift from manufacturing to service, and techno-
logical advancements are proposed to yield increases in task identity (Cappelli et al., 1997;
National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Specifically, to meet the demands of global com-
petition and do more with less (Royal & Agnew, 2011), bureaucratic organizations have
increasingly restructured into leaner hierarchies (Howard, 1995), and previously distinct
jobs have merged into more fluid work roles (National Academy of Sciences, 1999). As
noted by Nadler, Hackman, and Lawler (1979), combining multiple tasks to produce one
“whole” task should yield increased perceptions of task identity and ownership. With the
aid of technology, modern workers are able complete multiple, previously separate aspects
of a given project more quickly and with less help then in years past (National Academy of
Sciences, 1999; Van der Spiegel, 1995). Additionally, as the service industry grew, a greater
proportion of jobs required interaction with customers and clients. It is possible that because
employees are responsible for providing “whole” services to a given customer, task identity
perceptions have increased. Based on these trends, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Mean levels of task identity perceptions have increased since 1975.
Task significance. Task significance describes “the degree to which the job has sub-
stantial impact on the lives or work of other people—whether in the immediate organiza-
tion or in the external environment” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975: 161). Changes in the
omnibus context such as the shift from manufacturing to service and knowledge-based
work as well as the proposed demand for greater social interactions and work interdepen-
dence have potentially resulted in an increase in task significance (Grant, 2008; Morgeson
& Campion, 2003; Turban & Greening, 1997). Fried et al. (2008) proposed that the rise of
the service economy would result in greater contact between service providers and con-
sumers, with employees increasingly likely to experience the direct impact of their work
on others. Consistent with this, those with greater contact with beneficiaries of their work
(e.g., customers; Grant, 2007) and increased interaction with others outside their organi-
zation (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) tend to report higher levels of significance. Next,
employees increasingly work on teams (National Academy of Sciences, 1999) to complete
larger, more complex projects. The interdependence associated with working on a team
might also be expected to yield an increase in task significance perceptions (Cummings,
1978; Hackman, 1987). Additionally, due to flattened organizational structures, lower
level employees ostensibly have greater decision latitude and more authority, potentially
resulting in the perception that one’s work is more important (Humphrey et al., 2007). On
the basis of increased contact with others and greater authority and responsibility across
organizational levels, we predict:
Hypothesis 2: Mean levels of task significance perceptions have increased since 1975.
Skill variety. Skill variety concerns “the degree to which a job requires a variety of differ-
ent activities to carry out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and
talents of the employee” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975: 161). Based on the emergence of the
knowledge economy and the expansion of employees’ roles to meet competitive demands,
increases in skill variety are often proposed (Fried et al., 2008; Howard, 1995; Morgeson &
Campion, 2003). In the midst of the information age, “knowledge and information drive eco-
nomic growth” (Felin, Zenger, & Tomsik, 2009: 555). According to the National Academy of
Sciences (1999), the cognitive demands associated with modern work, and in particular with
knowledge-based jobs, are much greater than previous decades. Along with increased cogni-
tive complexity, there is also a greater demand for “soft skills” at work. Specifically, team-
based structures and increases in service jobs are expected to yield increased interpersonal
interactions with customers and colleagues. In turn, modern employees must rely on cogni-
tive and interpersonal skills to complete assignments (Fried et al., 2008; Grant & Parker,
2009), yielding a potential increase in skill variety perceptions. Finally, with trends toward
flat organizational hierarchies, fewer employees perform heavier workloads compared to
years past, requiring a more diverse skill set for effective performance (Davis, 1995; Fried,
Hollenbeck, Slowik, Tiegs, & Ben-David, 1999). Supporting these propositions, employees
since the 1970s have increasingly sought higher educational attainment (U.S. Census Bureau,
1992, 2012). Together, these trends suggest that the modern workplace requires employees to
use and seek out more diverse skills than in years past. Thus, we predict:
Hypothesis 3: Mean levels of skill variety perceptions have increased since 1975.
Feedback. Feedback is described as “the degree to which carrying out the work activities
required by the job results in the employee obtaining direct and clear information about the
effectiveness of his or her performance” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975: 162). Technological
advances allow for new ways to track progress and obtain feedback. For instance, modern
software programs can identify human errors and prompt the employee to fix mistakes even
before the task is completed (Hesketh & Neal, 1999). Similarly, technology can allow for
real-time tracking and reporting on employee performance, facilitating more input into feed-
back. In addition, with the popularization of multirater feedback systems and the emphasis
on performance management practices, feedback from others has also potentially increased.
Although feedback from the job and others are distinct, they tend to overlap substantially (ρ
= .57; Humphrey et al., 2007). Thus, it is possible that proposed increases in feedback from
others might also register in respondents’ reports of feedback from the job itself.
Hypothesis 4: Mean levels of feedback perceptions have increased since 1975.
Autonomy. Autonomy refers to “the degree to which the job provides substantial free-
dom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling the work and determining
the procedures to be used in carrying it out” (Hackman & Oldham, 1975: 162). On the basis
of omnibus economic changes (e.g., downsizing, doing more with less) and social changes
(e.g., women’s roles), employees are working longer hours (Families and Work Institute,
2006) and there are more dual-earner families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). At the same time,
aided by the increases in information technology, there is often less of a need for workers
to report directly to work (Tam, Korczynski, & Frenkel, 2002). Autonomy in the form of
flexible work schedules is increasingly important and practical to help employees manage
dual roles (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Halpern, 2005; Hill, Hawkins, Ferris, &
Weitzman, 2001) and has been found to be increasing in later years (Matos & Galinsky,
2012). In addition to changes in scheduling autonomy, employees are proposed to experi-
ence increased autonomy in on-the-job decision-making in recent years (Fried et al., 1999;
Howard, 1995). With global competition and the resulting flattening organizational hierar-
chies, decision-making authority is proposed to be more diffuse, with lower-level employees
granted a greater span of control and more responsibility than in previous decades (Cappelli,
1999; Howard, 1995). Based on these trends, we predict:
Hypothesis 5: Mean levels of autonomy perceptions have increased since 1975.
Finally, we examine the possibility of nonlinear changes in the job characteristics over
time. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, even if significant linear effects are not revealed,
it is still possible that job characteristics have undergone nonlinear changes. For instance, it
is possible that fluctuations in the U.S. economy will register a nonlinear trend. Thus, in
order to provide as comprehensive an analysis as possible, we provide an exploratory analy-
sis of nonlinear changes in the five core job characteristics.
Occupational Complexity
Of course, to some extent, changes in job characteristics perceptions are a reflection of
changes in the occupational makeup of the broader economy (Levy & Murnane, 2004). This
is important in the context of the present study for two reasons. First, it is important to ensure
that observed effects are not attributable to differences in the occupations sampled in the lit-
erature over the years. To account for the potential differential sampling of occupations, we
control for occupational complexity, or the skill-level necessary for successful performance
in a given occupation (Hollingshead, 1974). To the extent that occupational characteristics
have changed, controlling for changes in occupational complexity provides conservative
estimates of the proposed changes in job characteristics. However, there is evidence that
changes in job characteristics are thought to occur within and across occupations (Murphy &
Welch, 1993). Accordingly, we expect significant changes in the job characteristics since
1975 even when controlling for occupational characteristics.
Second, it is possible that changes have differentially affected different occupational
groups. For instance, it is possible that more highly skilled occupations have seen increases
in the core job characteristics whereas lower skilled occupations have evidenced decreased
or stable level of enrichment. Similarly, with middle-skill jobs and routine tasks being
replaced by technology, the economy has become polarized into higher- and lower-skill
groups (Acemoglu & Autor, 2011). In light of polarization, we also examine whether changes
in job characteristics are moderated by occupational complexity.
Research Question 1: Will changes in job characteristics differ as a function of occupational

complexity?
Sample Gender
In 2010, the workforce was composed of more women than men for the first time in U.S.
history (50.2%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In addition, women are increasingly occupying
more important and prestigious roles in organizations. For instance, in 1972, only 16% of
management positions were held by women; but by 2009, women held over half of all man-
agement positions (51.4%, U.S. Census Bureau, 1975, 2011). Given increasing number of
women entering the workplace and increased female representation in professional and man-
agerial roles, we expect that samples with more women to report more enriched work in
recent years relative to earlier years.
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between year and perceptions of job characteristics will be stronger
for samples with more women.
Study 2: Changes in Interdependence

Social context is an important aspect of work context that was not captured by the JDS, and
interdependence is among the most studied aspects of the social context (Dierdorff & Morgeson,
2007; Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011; Grant & Parker, 2009; Humphrey et al., 2007; Kelley
et al., 2003). Jobs are considered interdependent when “the people performing them must rely
on or collaborate with others to complete their work” (Dean & Snell, 1991: 784).
Shifts in organizational structures and the implementation of team-based work are com-
monly proposed to predicate increasing interdependence perceptions. As global competition
has increased, organizations have cut levels of management resulting in leaner hierarchies
(Cappelli, 1999; Howard, 1995), with greater flexibility to navigate changing competitive
demands and market uncertainty (Cappelli, 1999). In these flatter hierarchies, work is often
organized by project teams, rather than with a traditional hierarchical functional orientation
(O’Toole & Lawler, 2006). Flattening and the shift into project-based work enable the man-
agement of more diverse, complex projects and greater flexibility. Consistent with these
trends, the National Academy of Sciences (1999: 270) notes that the increased use of teams
is “among the most visible changes in the structure of work.” The rise in teamwork is often
cited as evidence that modern jobs have become highly interdependent (Grant & Parker,
2009). Team-based structures require employees to communicate with teammates, coordi-
nate responsibilities, and work with others in order to successfully perform on the job
(Stevens & Campion, 1994). We propose:
Hypothesis 7: Mean levels of interdependence perceptions have increased since 1985.
Study 3: Changes in Work vs. Changes in Workers

Although the primary purpose of this study is the examination of changes in job charac-
teristics, a secondary purpose is to examine whether employees’ value for certain job charac-
teristics have also changed. There are two approaches to examine changes in the value
workers place on enriched jobs. First, research has directly compared self-reported work
values across the years. Despite frequent predictions, the available empirical literature typi-
cally does not substantiate proposed increases in workforce value for enriched work. Past
research, typically falling under the auspices of generational research, has examined changes
in worker values for various job characteristics. For example, primary studies have compared
the value for autonomy (Hansen & Leuty, 2012; Lester, Standifer, Schultz, & Windor, 2012),
skill variety (Hansen & Leuty, 2012), and overall enrichment (Twenge et al., 2010) across
generations of workers. These studies have uniformly indicated weak and nonsignificant
evidence of changes in value for enrichment. Indeed, Twenge et al. (2010) actually docu-
mented the reverse trend: slight decreases in the value for enriched and socially interdepen-
dent work among millennials compared to earlier generations. Together, the extant literature
does not seem to support increases in the value for enriched work.
The second approach, and the one adopted in this study, is examining whether the relation-
ship between certain job characteristics and job satisfaction has changed in recent years. As
noted above, changes in job characteristics would be consistent with a D-A perspective on fit;
however, changes in worker value for a given characteristic would be consistent with an S-V
perspective on fit. Specifically, the relationship between a given job characteristic and job satis-
faction differs based on the extent to which an employee values the work characteristic (Locke,
1976). From this perspective, changes in the relationship between the job characteristic and job
satisfaction are reflective of temporal changes in the value for the job characteristic.
Specifically, if employees value more enriched work in more recent years, then changes in this
relationship would reflect employees’ increased desire for enriched work. This finding would be
important because it would provide organizations with important information about the type of
job characteristics that are desired by employees and prospective employees, thus providing valu-
able information in the recruitment, retention, and motivation of the workforce. On the other
hand, a lack of significant changes in the association between job characteristics and job satisfac-
tion would indicate that modern employees have a similar desire for enriched work as their pre-
decessors. Despite numerous studies investigating mean changes in self-reported value for
enriched work, past studies have not yet considered whether the relationship between job charac-
teristics and job satisfaction has changed over time. Consequently, a secondary purpose of this
study is to provide a moderated meta-analysis exploring the relationship between job characteris-
tics and job satisfaction across time. Because past research has not examined this relationship and
because generational researchers have proposed both increases and decreases in the value for
enriched work, we do not offer a formal hypothesis for these analyses.
Research Question 2: Has the relationship between perceptions of job characteristics and job satis-
faction changed since 1975?
Study 1 Method
Literature Search
Studies were located using Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dissertation Abstracts
International. In order to ensure that articles relevant to the JCM were identified, two citation
searches (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976) along with key word searches (i.e., “job charac-
teristics model; “job characteristics theory”) were used, producing 2,249 nonredundant cita-
tions between 1975 and May 2011.
Criteria for Inclusion

Studies were included if they (a) measured one or more job characteristic with the JDS
(Hackman & Oldham, 1975) or the Revised Job Diagnostic Survey1 (JDS-R; Idaszak &
Drasgow, 1987) using the original 7-point scale;2 (b) reported the mean and associated sam-
ple size for at least one job characteristic; and (c) were conducted using U.S.-based work-
place samples. Consistent with past cross-temporal meta-analyses (Twenge & Campbell,
2001; Twenge & Im, 2007), we focused on U.S. samples to avoid confounding our results
with cultural differences and to ensure as much homogeneity as possible in the studies
included (Fried et al., 2008). Based on these criteria, 102 studies were included in the cross
temporal meta-analysis, yielding 107 independent samples and a total sample size of between
12,033 and 15,510 depending on the specific job characteristic.
Coding of Studies
Main effects and gender. The mean, standard deviation, and sample size associated with
available job characteristics were collected from each study. As suggested by Oliver and
Hyde (1993) and based on common practice in prior cross temporal meta-analyses (Twenge,
2000, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2001), the year of data collection was coded as two years
before the study’s publication unless stated otherwise. Additionally, consistent with past
meta-analyses investigating gender differences (e.g., Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995;
Table 1
Hollingshead Index of Occupational Categories
Level Number Occupational Group Descriptor Skill-Level Code
9 Higher executives, proprietors of large businesses, major professionals High

● Examples: civil engineers, dentists, professors
8 Administrators, lesser professionals, proprietors of medium-sized businesses High
● Examples: accountants, computer analysts, registered nurses
7 Smaller business owners, managers, minor professionals High
● Examples: insurance adjusters, health practitioners, general managers
6 Technicians, semiprofessionals Mid
● Examples: dental hygienists, technicians, sheriffs/bailiffs
5 Clerical and sales workers Mid
● Examples: bank tellers, clerical, dental assistants
4 Skilled manual workers, craftsmen Mid
● Examples: mechanics, tailors, decorators
3 Machine operators, semiskilled workers Low
● Examples: bus driver, barber/hairdresser, surveyors
2 Unskilled workers Low
● Examples: busboys, laborers, waiters
1 Menial service workers Low
● Examples: janitors, ushers, attendants (personal and recreational)
T. Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), the percentage of males in the sample was also
recorded. All studies were coded by at least two trained coders, and agreement among raters
was high (93%). Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
Occupational complexity. Each primary study reporting occupational or job-type infor-

mation (about 60%) was coded using Hollingshead’s Index (Hollingshead, 1957). This index
is a commonly used occupational categorization (Adams & Weakliem, 2011) that groups
occupations based on the complexity of skills necessary for performance (Table 1) ranging
from 9 (most complex) to 1 (least complex). The occupation from each primary study was
searched using Hollingshead’s list and coded as high (score of 9, 8, or 7), middle (score of 6,
5, or 4) and low (score of 3, 2, or 1). Studies with multiple occupations in one sample were
only included when a single occupational code could be derived (e.g., a sample of physicians
and surgeons would both be coded as high complexity). When occupations in one sample
were not of the same complexity level, complexity was coded as unable to code. Agreement
between coders was found to be high (87%). Two types of analyses were conducted using
occupational complexity. The first was a control analysis to determine whether the relation-
ship between job characteristics and year holds when complexity level is controlled. In the
second, moderated multiple regression was used to examine whether occupational complex-
ity moderated the job characteristics–year relationship.
Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis
Cross-temporal meta-analysis differs from typical meta-analysis in that cross-temporal
meta-analysis focuses on mean levels of a scale (Twenge, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2001;
Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008; Twenge & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2002),
rather than summarizing effect sizes. Specifically, the correlation between the year data were
collected and relevant scale means from the study is computed to analyze changes in the
mean-levels of a given construct over time. Consistent with prior cross-temporal meta-anal-
yses (Gentile, Twenge, & Campbell, 2010; Twenge, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2001;
Twenge et al., 2008; Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004), we weighted data points using the inverse
variance, w, which weights means by the variance and sample size (Shadish & Haddock,
1994). In this method, the standard deviation (SD) from each individual study is squared and
multiplied by 1/n of each study. This product is inverted to obtain the weighting term, w =
(1/v). In total, 67% of data points included in this meta-analysis reported an SD, and when
not reported, the average SD per job characteristic was used to obtain the weighting term. To
calculate the magnitude of change in JDS scores, we conducted correlation and regression
analyses. A significant relationship between year and the job characteristic is interpreted as
evidence that the job characteristic has linearly changed over time. As typical in cross-tem-
poral meta-analysis, we use the regression equation to derive predicted mean values of each
job characteristic for the earliest (i.e., 1975) and latest year (i.e., 2011) and use this to calcu-
late Cohen’s d. The weighted correlation estimates linear change, or how well the observed
change approximates a linear trend. On the other hand, Cohen’s d estimates total change
between the two time periods, regardless of whether the change conforms to a linear trend
(Twenge, 2001; Twenge et al., 2008).
Study 1 Results
Main Effects
Hypotheses 1 through 5 predicted increases in the five core job characteristics (Table 2).
Contrary to Hypotheses 1 and 2, neither task identity nor significance evidenced a significant
increase since 1975. However, supporting Hypothesis 3, mean levels of skill variety increased
significantly since 1975. These results indicate a large increase in the predicted level of skill
variety for 1975 and 2011 (d = .94; Table 3). Hypothesis 4 was rejected; feedback has not
significantly increased. Lastly, in support of Hypothesis 5, autonomy has significantly
increased since 1975 and produced a moderate effect size (d = .42).
Occupational Complexity Controls and Moderation

Controlling for occupational complexity levels, both skill variety and autonomy continued
to evidence a significant relationship with year (Table 4). This provides evidence for an increase
in levels of these job characteristics above and beyond what is explained by occupational com-
plexity. However, for both of these variables, when the interaction term was entered in the final
step, the relationships fell, indicating that high-, middle-, and low-complexity occupations have
all experienced a similar increase in skill variety and autonomy in later years.
Sample Gender and Changes in Job Characteristics

Moderated multiple regression analyses revealed a significant interaction between sample
gender and year in predicting both mean-level task significance and feedback, providing
Table 2
Meta-Analysis of Changes in Perceived Job Characteristics
Variable N k M SD rw
Job characteristic
Task identity 12,033 86 4.77 0.55 .17
Task significance 15,081 92 5.52 0.55 .05
Skill variety 13,660 90 5.11 0.78 .36***
Feedback 14,470 89 4.93 0.46 .12
Autonomy 15,510 106 5.13 0.63 .29**
Year of data collection — — 1987.64 8.40 —
Note: N = total sample size; k = number of independent samples; M = overall mean; SD = standard deviation of the
mean; rw = inverse variance weighted correlation with year.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Table 3
Predicted Means and Effect Size Associated With Changes in Job Characteristics
Variable 1975 M 2011 M SD d
Job characteristic
Task identity 5.58 5.89 1.32 .24
Task significance 6.21 6.31 1.13 .09
Skill variety 5.08 6.23 1.23 .94
Feedback 5.72 5.89 1.20 .15
Autonomy 4.49 5.02 1.24 .42
Note: Predicted means were estimated using results of the regression analysis. 1975 Mean = predicted mean for
1975; 2011 M = predicted mean for 2011; SD = average standard deviation of primary studies; d = Cohen’s d for
the predicted value of 1975 and 2011.
Table 4
Effect Sizes Controlling for Occupational Complexity Levels
Variable k R ∆R2 B SE B β t
Skill variety
Step 1 57 .60 .36***
Complexity .56 .11 .54 5.25***
Step 2 .71 .13**
Year .04 .01 .37 3.57**
Autonomy
Step 1 66 .22 .05
Complexity .12 .06 .22 1.89
Step 2 .45 .15**
Year .02 .01 .39 3.30**
Note: k = number of independent samples, B = unstandardized coefficient; SE B = standard error of B; β =

standardized coefficient; t = computed value of t-test.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Table 5
Moderated Multiple Regression of Sample Gender Moderating the Relationship
Between Year and Job Characteristics
Variable k R ∆R2 B SE B β t
Task identity
Step 1 46 .37 .13*
Percent male .00 .00 .04 0.29
Year .02 .01 .37 2.55*
Step 2 46 .37 .00
Percent Male × Year .00 .00 .03 0.22
Task significance
Step 1 50 .22 .05
Percent male .00 .00 −.02 −0.13
Year .00 .01 .09 0.61
Step 2 50 .42 .18**
Percent Male × Year .00 .00 −.46 −2.72**
Skill variety
Step 1 49 .57 .33***
Percent male .01 .00 .31 2.40*
Year .05 .01 .53 4.36***
Step 2 49 .58 .01
Feedback
Step 1 50 .27 .07
Percent male .00 .00 .03 0.20
Year .01 .01 .37 2.42*
Step 2 50 .46 .14**
Percent Male × Year .00 .00 −.45 −2.83**
Autonomy
Step 1 59 .47 .20**
Percent Male .01 .00 .28 2.30*
Year .02 .01 .39 3.23**
Step 2 59 .46 .01
Note: Male = 1; Female = 0; k = number of independent samples; B = unstandardized coefficient; SE B = standard

error of B; β = standardized coefficient; t = computed value of t-test.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
partial support for Hypothesis 6 (Table 5). As depicted in Figures 1 and 2, for both task sig-
nificance and feedback, samples with a higher proportion of women reported increased task
significance and feedback in more recent years. Specifically, samples with a larger percent-
age of females reported significant increases in task significance (b = .03, t = 3.19, p < .01),
whereas samples with more males reported significantly less task significance (b = −.02, t =
−2.72, p < .01) in recent years. Similarly, samples with more females reported significant
increases in feedback (b = .04, t = 4.98, p < .001), while samples with more men reported a
modest but nonsignificant decrease in feedback (b = −.01, t = −1.955, p = .057). Interestingly,
Figure 1
Interaction of Year and Sample Percent Male Predicting Mean Levels
of Task Significance
Figure 2
Interaction of Year and Sample Percent Male Predicting Mean Levels of Feedback
Table 6
Results of Linear, Quadratic, and Cubic Regression Models Predicting Job
Characteristic Mean
Year Year2 Year3
β t p β t p β t p Model R2
Task identity
Linear .17 1.61 n.s. .03
Linear, square .29 2.43 <.05 −.25 −2.09 <.05 .08
Linear, square, cube .29 1.34 n.s. −.25 −0.15 n.s. .00 0.00 n.s. .08
Task significance
Linear .05 0.49 n.s. .00
Linear, square .02 0.22 n.s. .13 1.23 n.s. .02
Linear, square, cube .46 2.03 <.05 .32 2.36 <.05 −.56 −2.18 <.05 .07
Skill variety
Linear .36 3.56 <.01 .13
Linear, square .43 3.92 <.001 −.17 −1.59 n.s. .15
Linear, square, cubed .65 3.35 <.001 −.01 −0.08 n.s. −.35 −1.39 n.s. .17
Feedback
Linear .13 1.17 n.s. .02
Linear, square .08 .74 n.s. .18 1.64 n.s. .05
Linear, square, cube .39 1.70 n.s. .31 2.24 <.05 −.40 −1.52 n.s. .07
Autonomy
Linear .28 2.98 <.01 .08
Linear, square .34 3.34 <.01 −.15 −1.53 n.s. .10
Linear, square, cube .41 2.07 <.05 −.12 −0.90 n.s. −.11 −0.46 n.s. .10
Note: Cases are weighted by the inverse variance.
when occupational complexity was controlled, both interactions with sample gender dropped
to nonsignificance.
Supplemental Nonlinear Analysis and Results

To examine whether quadratic or cubic terms explained significant variance beyond the
linear term, we conducted curvilinear analyses. First, we created quadratic and cubic terms,
using centered year to reduce multicolinearity. Then, using the linear regression function,
centered year was entered in step one, followed by centered year squared in step two, and
finally, centered year cubed in Step 3. Results are displayed in Table 6. Skill variety and
autonomy evidenced only significant linear effects. Neither the linear nor the nonlinear mod-
els fit feedback. On the other hand, evidence of a nonlinear trend was supported for both task
identity and task significance. Task identity showed evidence of a quadratic effect, and task
significance showed a cubic effect. For task identity, an increase of 1.07 SD was observed
between 1975 and 1991, at which point it began to decrease, showing a 1.05 SD decrease from
1991 to 2011. The cubic function of task significance showed that from 1975 to 1985 there
was a sharp decrease of 2 SD, which mostly stabilized from 1985 to 2000, and then continued
to decrease sharply thereafter. Both task identity and task significance had negative βs as their
final terms, indicating decreases in more recent years (i.e., task identity displays an inverted U
and task significance begins with an upward concave and ends with a downward concave).
Study 1 Discussion
Study 1 provided the first analysis of changes in task context perceptions and supported
mean-level increases in skill variety and autonomy since 1975, even when controlling for
occupational complexity. Increases in perceptions of skill variety and autonomy are consis-
tent with our expectations of increasingly enriched work based on the onset of the knowledge
economy and the era of “doing more with less.” In other words, jobs, on average, demand
greater levels of diverse skills from workers and demand that workers complete their tasks
with less direct supervision.
Despite nonsignificant linear trends for task identity and significance, both evidenced
significant nonlinear trends. Specifically, although task identity increased until 1991, as com-
puters saw increasing usage, organizations were potentially better able to segment work both
functionally and geographically. Likewise, in manufacturing settings, tasks traditionally
completed by humans were increasingly automated. In both cases, it is possible that increas-
ing technology resulted in a lower proportion of employees who were able to see the final,
tangible results of their labor, triggering a drop in task identity. Task significance reduced
initially then stabilized throughout the 1990s and again dropped significantly in the last
decade of the study. It is possible that the falling levels of task significance are attributable to
leaner organizations, resulting greater overemployment. Specifically, through the 1980s the
U.S. economy was undergoing an era of downsizing, potentially resulting in overqualified
employees working in lower level jobs. Then, in the final decade of the study, economic
struggles and the associated reductions in force potentially triggered another increase in
overemployment and decrease in task significance. We hasten to note that these interpreta-
tions are speculative and encourage research to more provide a more direct examination of
these nonlinear trends.
Despite the insights gained in Study 1, the cross-temporal meta-analysis did not allow for
an examination of social context due to the fact that the JDS does not measure social context.
As noted by Oldham and Hackman (2010: 467) “we did not view social factors as essential
for fostering internal work motivation. Indeed, we thought that we had identified the core
motivational properties of jobs and that other properties were of relatively little motivational
consequence.” We did, however, attempt a cross-temporal meta-analysis of interdependence,
but the most popular measures of interdependence (i.e., Dean & Snell, 1991; Pearce &
Gregersen, 1991) are relatively new and have not been used in sufficient studies to allow for
the inclusion in a cross-temporal meta-analysis. Thus, the analysis of social context neces-
sitated the identification of a primary sample that had measured social context over an
extended time period.
Sudy 2 Method
Survey and Sample
The data for Study 2 are from the WorkTrendsTM employee opinion survey. This survey
has been distributed annually since 1985 and is described elsewhere (Kaplan, Wiley, &
Maertz, 2011; Kowske et al., 2010). In the present study, we used all available years of data
on two interdependence items ranging from 1985 to 2011.
Measure and Analysis

Two items from the WorkTrendsTM survey were relevant to social context: “The people I
work with cooperate to get the job done” (total N of 185,681, across 25 years, 1985-2011,
omitting 2000) and “Other work groups give us the support we need to serve our customers”
(total N of 138,881, across 17 years, 1993-2010). To determine if interdependence has
increased over time, analyses of both items were conducted using analysis of variance
(ANOVA).3 Respondent gender and occupational complexity (high, middle, low;
Hollingshead, 1957) were examined as covariates.
Study 2 Results
Hypothesis 7 proposed increases in work interdependence with later years. For the first
interdependence item, “The people I work with cooperate to get the job done,” the ANOVA
was significant, F(101, 103,408) = 16.82, p < .001, R2 = .015, supporting the predicted increase
in interdependence. The main effect of gender was nonsignificant, F(1, 103,408) = 1.715, p =
.190; whereas the main effects for year, F(16, 103,408) = 21.54, p < .001, η2 = .003; and skill
level, F(2, 103,408) = 488.34, p < .001, η2 = .009 were significant. Significant two-way inter-
actions were found for the interaction between year and skill level, F(32, 103,408) = 1.93, p =
.001, η2 = .001 (higher interdependence found with higher complexity jobs; see Figure 3) and
gender and year, F(16, 103,408) = 3.14, p < .001, η2 < .001 (men and women reported similar
levels of interdependence until the mid-2000s; Figure 4). The interaction between gender and
skill level was nonsignificant, as was the three-way interaction of all factors.
The ANOVA for the second interdependence item, “Other work groups give us the support
we need to serve our customers,” was also significant, F(71, 81,430) = 19.34, p < .001, R2 = .016,
again supporting an increase in interdependence. The main effects of gender, F(1, 81,430) =
27.37, p < .001, η2 < .001; year, F(11, 81,430) = 54.95, p < .001, η2 = .007; and skill level, F(2,
81,430) = 221.79, p < .001, η2 = .005, were all significant. Significant two-way interactions were
found for the interaction between year and skill level, F(22, 81,430) = 2.94, p = .001, η2 = .001
(in general, higher skill levels also had higher interdependence; Figure 5); gender and year, F(11,
81,430) = 2.75, p < .001, η2 < .001 (compared to women, men reported slightly lower interde-
pendence until the mid-2000s; Figure 6); and gender and skill level F(2, 81,430) = 12.59, p <
.001, η2 < .001 (men and women in higher skilled jobs reported similar high levels of interdepen-
dence; in low and medium complexity jobs, women reported higher interdependence; Figure 7).
The three-way interaction was nonsignificant.
Study 2 Discussion
The analysis of the two WorkTrendsTM items supports predicted increases in interdepen-
dence and provides some evidence that interdependent work varies by occupational com-
plexity and gender. These findings support suggestions that work requires greater cooperation
with others to effectively complete job task and, thus, suggest that management systems and
processes that reinforce cooperative behaviors will be increasingly important.
Figure 3
Changes in Interdependence (Item 1) by Occupational Complexity
Note: Item—“The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.”
Figure 4
Differences in Interdependence (Item 1) by Gender
Note: Item—“The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.”
Although this study was valuable in allowing for an examination of changes in social
context not possible with cross-temporal meta-analysis, a few limitations warrant discus-
sion. The use of single item measures of interdependence was necessary in order to exam-
ine social context, as there was no other available data to allow for this examination. Other
researchers have also used single-item measures to examine change over time for this
Figure 5
Changes in Interdependence (Item 2) by Occupational Complexity
Note: “Other work groups give us the support we need to serve our customers.”
Figure 6
Changes in Interdependence (Item 2) by Gender
Figure 7
Differences in Interdependence (Item 2) by Occupational Complexity and Gender
reason (e.g., Highhouse, Zickar, & Yankelevich, 2010; Kowske et al., 2010). In addition,
the content of these items are consistent with items on multi-item interdependence scales
(e.g., “How much does success in this unit depend on cooperation with other people?”
[Dean and Snell, 1991]; and “I frequently must coordinate my efforts with others” [Pearce
& Gregersen, 1991]). Having provided empirical evidence for increases in mean levels of
skill variety, autonomy, and interdependence, we next turned our attention to examining
whether the relationships between the core job characteristics and job satisfaction has
changed over time.
Study 3 Method
Study 3 considered changes in the relationship between the core job characteristics and
job satisfaction. The literature search used the same method as Study 1. To be included in this
meta-analysis, the study had to (a) be conducted in an organization, (b) measure one or more
of the five core job characteristics using the JDS, and (c) report a correlation of the relation-
ship between job satisfaction and one or more of the five core job characteristics. We also
coded sample size along with predictor and criterion reliability. On the basis of the criteria
for inclusion, 37 studies, published between 1975 and May 2011, met the inclusion criteria,
yielding ks between 31 and 45 for each job characteristic.
Meta-Analysis Methods
We used an adapted version of Arthur, Bennett, and Huffcutt’s (2001) SAS PROC MEANS
program to conduct the meta-analysis based on Raju, Burke, Normand, and Langlois’s (1991)
random effects meta-analysis method. Individual correlations were weighted by N as well as
corrected for predictor and criterion unreliability. For studies that did not report reliability
information, the average reliability was used.
To determine if the relationship between each job characteristic and job satisfaction
has changed, separate continuous moderator analyses were conducted with year as the
moderator. Hedges and Olkin’s (1985) meta-regression method was used for this analy-
sis. This method uses weighted least squares multiple regression, where the correlations
are weighted by the inverse sample variance (w). Specifically, the correlation between
job satisfaction and a job characteristic is regressed onto the continuous moderator,
year. Significant results indicate that the job satisfaction–job characteristics relation-
ship varies by year.
Study 3 Results
Table 7 presents the meta-analytic results for the associations between each job character-
istic and job satisfaction. The meta-analytic estimates were consistent with past reviews of
these relationships (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007). We next regressed the relationship between
job satisfaction and each of the job characteristics onto year using weighted least squares
regression to examine whether this relationship is moderated by year. The results indicated
that the relationship between job satisfaction and each of the job characteristics was not sig-
nificantly associated with year (Table 8).
Table 7
Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between JDS Job Characteristics and Job
Satisfaction
Job Characteristics N k r ρ SD ρ 80% CR 95% CI Q
Task identity 15,032 34 .26 .35 .06 [.28, .42] [.33, .36] 151.19
Task significance 14,043 31 .30 .41 .04 [.36, .46] [.39, .42] 122.20
Skill variety 14,965 34 .33 .45 .12 [.30, .61] [.44, .47] 437.15
Feedback 15,636 38 .33 .47 .07 [.37, .56] [.45, .48] 265.73
Autonomy 17,853 45 .39 .52 .10 [.39, .65] [.51, .53] 460.37
Note: N = total sample size; k = number of independent samples; r = uncorrected mean weighted correlation; ρ =
rho, population effect size; SD ρ = standard deviation of rho; CR = credibility interval; CI = confidence interval; Q
= Q-statistic.
Table 8
Results of the Job Characteristic–Job Satisfaction Relationship Regressed on Year
Moderator Task Identity Task Significance Skill Variety Feedback Autonomy
Year β .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.02) .00 (.01)
Total R2 .04 .09 .00 .01 .07
Note: Adjusted standard errors are in parentheses following effect sizes.
Study 3 Discussion
Despite frequent speculation of changes in the value of enriched work to modern workers,
the results of Study 3 do not support the idea that the core job characteristics are significantly
more satisfying to modern workers. Specifically, the association between the core job char-
acteristics and job satisfaction did not differ significantly over time. These findings corre-
spond with other findings that examined changes in the value for enriched work using
self-reports of employee values (e.g., Lester et al., 2012; Real, Mitnick, & Maloney, 2010;
Twenge et al., 2010). When taken with the findings of Study 1 and 2, these findings suggest
that although there is evidence that job characteristics have changed, these changes do not
appear to be a function of organizations changing policies to meet changing preferences of
employees. To the contrary, it seems as though the nature of work has changed, regardless of
whether employees desire the changes or not.
However, a few limitations should be noted. First, there were a relatively small number of
studies for the analyses, meaning there may not have been sufficient power to detect significant
effects. Further, the small number of studies precluded the investigation of potential nonlinear
relationships that might have emerged. However, the number of studies available here are on par
with other meta-analyses that have examined continuous moderators. In addition, although we
only included studies that used the JDS to measure job characteristics, in order to bolster the
number of independent samples, we included all measures of job satisfaction (e.g., non-JDS
measures of job satisfaction were included). Finally, because the analysis of social context is a
relatively recent advancement in the management literature, we were unable to examine whether
the relationship between interdependence and satisfaction has significantly changed over time.
General Discussion
Changes in the nature of work are commonly referenced but rarely empirically scruti-
nized. The present findings substantiate proposed increases in skill variety, autonomy, and
interdependence, yet failed to support proposed increases in task significance, task identity,
and feedback. Despite apparent increases in skill variety, autonomy, and interdependence, the
results of the third study do not support the idea that enriched jobs are more satisfying to
employees relative to earlier years. These findings provide a needed empirical foundation to
evaluate and refine past conceptual propositions of changes in the nature of work. In light of
the reemergence of context as a focal work-related variable (Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2007;
Dierdorff et al., 2009; Fried et al., 2007; Grant et al., 2010; Johns, 2006), empirically isolat-
ing salient contextual features has implications for a variety of management functions. We
highlight three overarching implications, including (a) the empirical description of modern
work context, (b) a contextual interpretation of proposed changes in worker values, and (c)
the implications of observed changes in context for research and practice across areas of
inquiry.
Main Findings: Describing the Context of Modern Work

By operationalizing omnibus context using time (Johns, 2006), this study describes
changes in work context since 1975 and, in doing so, provides an empirically based descrip-
tion of the modern work context in the U.S. Given the critical role of work context in shaping
employee attitudes and behaviors (Johns, 2006), the present findings are especially useful in
directing attention to contextual features of increasing relevance to today’s organizations and
researchers. From the outset we should note that the present findings concern average job-
level changes and, thus, would not be expected to apply to all individuals in the U.S.
workplace.
Consistent with the proposition that omnibus changes in global competition and a trend
toward leaner organizations have yielded increasing skill variety, moderate increases in skill
variety were supported. Omnibus changes have yielded a modern work context that demands
employees who possess the ability to gain the skills needed to fill multiple functional roles
(Cappelli et al., 1997) and is increasingly complex in terms of cognitive demands (National
Academy of Sciences, 1999). Given changing demands, these findings support the idea that
intelligence, learning orientation, and the openness needed to learn and apply new informa-
tion will potentially become as important to job success as cultivated technical skills (e.g.,
“learn how” vs. “know how”; Fried et al., 2008).
Next, our findings indicate that modern jobs offer greater control in determining when and
how work is completed relative to the 1970s. Autonomy is typically conceptualized as a key
work resource (Karasek, 1979), one that is beneficial to employees in navigating an increas-
ingly demanding work schedule (Rau & Hyland, 2002). Given increases in hours worked and
dual-income families, it is possible that autonomy has become a necessary requirement to
balance family and work. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that autonomy was characterized by
the lowest predicted mean of the five core job characteristics in both 1975 and 2011. With the
documented evidence of increases in autonomy in scheduling work (Matos & Galinsky,
2012), the relatively low level of autonomy was surprising. Given that autonomy is some-
times conceptualized as a multifaceted construct (cf. Breaugh, 1985; Breaugh & Becker,
1987; Latham & Pinder, 2005; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), it is possible that differential
effects across facets attenuated observed findings. With the JDS assessing global autonomy
and few popular facet-level measures of autonomy until recent years, we could not examine
facet-level changes, but future research on this topic should be conducted. For instance,
although autonomy in scheduling policies may be on the rise, autonomy in decision making
may not have increased as rapidly, attenuating the overall effects. Finally, given the nature of
most employment contracts and organizational structures, some degree of organizational
control (e.g., supervision) and performance monitoring has been and will likely continue to
be necessary for most jobs.
It is also important to acknowledge potential challenges associated with increasing auton-
omy. For instance, a recent high-profile media story reported on a programmer who out-
sourced his job to a worker in China at a fraction of the cost. Not only did this employee
remain undetected while outsourcing his job, but the employee’s supervisor rated him as one
of the highest-performing programmers in the business unit (Inocencio, 2013). This case is
illustrative of the difficulty inherent in managing autonomous employees (e.g., Hertel,
Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004). Given increasing levels of
autonomy, increased attention is needed to identify strategies that provide employees auton-
omy, while simultaneously facilitating effective performance management processes.
Next, our findings implicate increasing perceptions of interdependence as a key change
characterizing the modern workplace. These findings suggest that, along with the increasing
cognitive skills and learning orientation needed to navigate the modern workplace, “soft
skills” like interpersonal skills and the ability to get along with others are also increasingly
important. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the trend toward a more interdependent work-
place, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM; 2008a, 2008b; SHRM & WSJ.
com/Careers, 2008) as well as the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE;
2012) list interpersonal skills as among the top skills most needed in the workplace; yet inter-
personal skills are also among the top-rated deficiencies of employees entering the workforce
(SHRM, 2008a, 2008b). Clearly, attention must be given to the identification and develop-
ment of employees with the interpersonal skills required in the modern work context.
The observed increases in autonomy and interdependence may seem paradoxical.
However, as layers of management have been reduced and replaced with team-based struc-
tures, workers have increased autonomy in that there is less direct supervision. Employees
are more interdependent with peers in terms of making decisions, potentially yielding
increases in both autonomy and interdependence. In addition, any increase in the scheduling
aspect of autonomy would not be expected to impact interdependence. Thus, the findings
depict a workforce in which employees work with less supervision but are more reliant on
lateral relationships to effectively complete their work.
The nonsignificant linear trends for task identity, task significance, and feedback from the
job contribute empirical evidence to our understanding of what has not changed, despite
popular opinion (e.g., Cappelli et al., 1997; Grant, 2008; Morgeson & Campion, 2003;
Turban & Greening, 1997). There are a few caveats to these nonsignificant findings. Notably,
it is possible that the time period of the study was insufficient to detect trends in these vari-
ables. However, given vast economic changes over the past few decades, the lack of evidence
of a linear trend is important as they suggest that in recent history, these job characteristics
have not increased significantly relatively to the 1970s. For example, some have cautioned
that the availability of feedback enabling technologies has created the risk of feedback over-
load (Lurie & Swaminathan, 2008; Van der Spiegel, 1995). Yet the present analysis did not
support this proposed increase. Given the increasing complexity of jobs, especially with
regards to interpersonal demands, feedback seems especially important to effective perfor-
mance management in the modern workforce. A second caveat to these findings is that the
nonlinear trends for task significance and identity provide some evidence for changes in task
identity and task significance; however, both suggested a downward trend in recent years.
A third caveat is that nonsignificant main effects for feedback and task significance were
qualified by a significant interaction with the percentage of women in the sample, with sam-
ples with more women reporting higher levels of both since 1975. To the extent that women’s
occupations have become more professionally oriented over the past 30 years, the increase in
task significance is not surprising. Similarly, to the extent that more important assignments
require more feedback, it makes sense that the observed increase in task significance for
samples with more women was accompanied by an increase in feedback. Given the lack of a
significant interaction between gender and skill variety and autonomy, one potential road-
block to women’s continued advancement to the highest organizational levels may be reduced
access to developmental experiences that actually facilitate the growth in skills needed to
advance. Consistent with this interpretation, recent research found that although both male
and female managers reported an equal number of developmental work experiences, these
experiences were qualitatively different in that men’s experiences were significantly more
challenging than those of women (King et al., 2012). It is however important to acknowledge
that both moderation effects dropped to nonsignificance when occupational complexity was
controlled. From this perspective, it seems that changes in the job characteristics of samples
with more women is potentially attributable to changes in occupational complexity rather
than changes to task significance and feedback within occupational groups.
Changes in Work, Not Workers

The results of Study 3 did not support the suggestion that modern workers find enriched
work more satisfying than earlier workers. These findings correspond with past studies that
have generally failed to support differences in values for enriched work among more recent
workers (e.g., Twenge et al., 2010). On the basis of the collective pattern of results, these
findings point to a D-A fit perspective rather than an S-V perspective on the changing nature
of work (e.g., Lester et al., 2012). That is, although job characteristics have changed, employ-
ees do not find enriched work more satisfying than in previous years.
It is noteworthy that the three job characteristics that did evidence increases (autonomy,
skill variety, and interdependence) are among the most commonly proposed changes to
worker values (e.g., Hansen & Leuty, 2012; Lester et al., 2012; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010;
Twenge et al., 2010). Given that our review shows that these three aspects of context have
increased, it seems possible that generational commentators have made a fundamental attri-
bution error in observing changes in work.
Specifically, generational commentators have potentially misattributed anecdotal evi-
dence of changes in patterns of employee behavior (e.g., an analysis of employee behavior
would show that modern workers work with others more closely in more responsible and
skilled jobs) to an internal cause: changes in employees’ values for these characteristics.
Based on our findings, these patterns of behavior have an external cause: changing context in
the form of increased prevalence of interdependent, skilled, and autonomous work. The
source of changes (individual versus contextual) has important implications for the appropri-
ate organizational response to the changing nature of work. In this way, recommendations to
change work context to recruit, retain, and effectively manage employees on the basis of
supposed changes in value for enrichment are potentially misguided. Instead, theorists and
practitioners should focus on understanding the selection and development of employees
with KSAs needed to succeed in the modern environment.
Given the increases in enriched work supported here, it is somewhat surprising that other
studies have generally failed to support significant increases in job satisfaction over time
(Bowling, Hoepf, & LaHuis, 2011; Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012). In other
words, to the extent that jobs are more enriched, we would expect workers to be more satisfied.
There are a few potential explanations for this disconnect. One reason could be that there is a
curvilinear relationship between job characteristics and satisfaction. According to Warr’s
(1987) Vitamin Model, job characteristics yield increases in employee well-being until a satu-
ration point is reached, at which point increased enrichment is associated with reductions in
employee well-being. Indeed, a small body of research has evinced curvilinear relationships
between job characteristics and outcomes (Champoux, 1980, 1981, 1992; Fletcher & Jones,
1993; Warr, 1990; Xie & Johns, 1995). As levels of enrichment have increased over time, it is
possible that modern jobs are overenriched (Johns, 2010). Consistent with this logic, Twenge
et al. (2010) supported a slight decrease in the value for enrichment across generations, whereas
others have reported an increase in the value for work-life balance (Smola & Sutton, 2002;
Twenge et al., 2010). Although never examined in the context of temporal changes, some
research is supportive of the potential for negative effects of overenrichment. For instance, skill
variety (Chen & Chiu, 2009), autonomy (De Jonge & Schaufeli, 1998; Golden & Veiga, 2005),
interdependence (Harrison, Johns, & Martocchio, 2000; Wong, DeSanctis, & Staudenmayer,
2007), and job scope (i.e., combination of job characteristics; Xie & Johns, 1995; Champoux,
1980) have all been empirically linked with deleterious outcomes for workers, such as conflict,
stress, and burnout. To the extent that autonomy, skill variety, and interdependence have
increased as a set, it seems particularly relevant for researchers and practitioners to be aware of
the potential for adverse side effects and curvilinear effects associated with these changes.
Although only suggestive, this pattern of results warrants further attention.
An anonymous reviewer proposed an alternative interpretation of the finding that jobs
are more enriched despite minimal prior evidence for increases in job satisfaction.
Specifically, the failure of past studies to support increases in job satisfaction could also
reflect adaptation by modern workers who have become accustomed to more enriched
jobs. According to adaption level theory (Helson, 1947), prior exposure to stimuli impacts
an individual’s reference point. From this perspective, it is possible that increasingly
enriched work may not lead to greater satisfaction because employees have adapted to the
current level of enrichment and subsequently have increased their work enrichment expec-
tations. In other words, employees expect enrichment and increasing levels of job charac-
teristics are needed to keep employees satisfied at baseline levels. Unfortunately, the
present data do not allow us to tease apart whether workers have simply adapted to and
come to expect high levels of enrichment or whether there is a disconnect between increas-
ing levels of enrichment but not satisfaction.
Implications for Research

Understanding of context is essential to effective research and practice across human
resource systems (Dierdorff et al., 2009). By describing modern work context and changes in
work context, our findings have implications for numerous lines of inquiry and human
resource management processes. Below we highlight the implications of changes in work
context for three exemplary areas of management research, including: work context, perfor-
mance appraisal, and leadership.
Most directly, our findings have theoretical implications for the study of work context.
The present study tests a central aspect of Johns’s (2006) model of work context: that the
temporal component of omnibus context influences discrete work context. The results sup-
port the proposed model of context change and codify the value of year as a valuable and
explanatory operationalization of omnibus context. Future studies and in particular meta-
analyses can benefit from incorporating time into analyses. In addition, although numerous
work context changes have been proposed (e.g., Dierdorff et al., 2009; Grant, 2008; Grant
et al., 2011; Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Parker et al., 2001), the present study helps to
refine these proposals by identifying those features that actually have changed. Thus, these
results can provide a useful guide to researchers when discussing the changing nature of
work and when interpreting temporal differences that emerge in future studies.
Next, the present findings have implications for criterion development and performance
appraisal research. From a D-A fit perspective, increases in interdependence will demand
employees who have the ability to work effectively with others. Consistent with this, organi-
zational citizenship behaviors (OCB) have been shown to be more redundant with ratings of
task performance in interdependent contexts (Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, & Richey, 2006).
Given increases in interdependence, it is possible that OCB and task performance will be
increasingly difficult to distinguish in modern contexts. In this way, this study has the poten-
tial to inform criterion theory by pointing to a change in discrete context that has the potential
to change the dimensionality of the criterion space. Similarly, given increases in interdepen-
dence, it is possible that OCB will be increasingly rewarded by organizational decision-
makers, implying that OCB will be potentially more instrumental to employee effectiveness
in coming years.
Next, these documented changes in work context also have potential implications for
leadership research. Based on our results, leaders increasingly manage employees who com-
plete complex assignments, work closely with others, and do so with considerable autonomy.
Grant, Gino, and Hofmann (2011) presented a series of studies that found that extraverted
leaders may undermine employee proactivity in enriched jobs and proposed that communal
leadership might be more valuable in such settings. To the extent that modern work is increas-
ingly enriched, communal leader behaviors might be more desirable across settings.
Consistent with this perspective, DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, and Humphrey’s (2011) meta-
analytic path model indicated that consideration leader behaviors were the strongest predic-
tors of leadership outcomes, and Dierdorff et al. (2009) found interpersonal requirements to
be a universally important characteristic of managerial work. Similarly, Pilcher (2012) found
that supervisor-subordinate relationship was the most critical aspect of effective performance
management. However, our results suggest that it is possible that this broader pattern of
results is bound by time.
Indeed, Gentry, Harris, Baker, and Leslie (2008) found increases in the perceived impor-
tance of relationship-building for effective leadership in more recent years. In this way, it
might be possible that the prototype of an effective leader has changed. It is possible that the
traditional top-down style of leadership is less effective, on average, than in years past (e.g.,
Drath et al., 2008; Grant et al., 2011). To the extent that jobs are increasingly enriched, pre-
scribed leader behavior may have shifted to a more communal form of leadership. Yet
because these characteristics were not relevant to earlier leadership theories, they have rarely
been explicitly considered. In this way, building these contextual features into the analysis of
leadership is a critical need. For instance, we are unaware of leader contingency theories or
even many individual studies that have explicitly examined the relative efficacy of various
leader traits and behaviors in highly complex, autonomous, and/or interdependent settings.
This is a timely area for research.
Practical Implications
The primary practical implication is that this study points to areas of context that warrant
attention from organizations. First, organizations should be wary of changing organizational
practices to meet some presumed change in employee values. Instead, work context itself has
changed and, thus, organizations should focus on providing all employees with the resources
needed for success in the modern work context. Next, given the trends documented here, it
will be increasingly important to select employees with the KSAs needed to succeed in inter-
dependent, complex, and autonomous settings. Thus, the average organization should con-
sider including tools such as cognitive ability, learning orientation, and traits needed to
get along with others when selecting employees. Similarly, training programs devoted toward
working effectively through interpersonal conflict will likely be of increasing value to orga-
nizations. Finally, leader development programs should explicitly build in content devoted
toward managing employees in the modern context. Similarly, should research confirm the
proposed increase in importance of consideration leader behaviors, older leader development
programs should be revised to include an emphasis on this form of leadership.
Limitations
Although the present set of studies contributes to the literature in multiple ways, it is impor-
tant to acknowledge what these results do not tell us. First, our cross-temporal meta-analysis
results center on trends in mean levels of job characteristics over time in the U.S. and should
not be interpreted as relevant to every job in every country. Clearly, there are still many mod-
ern jobs characterized by low levels of autonomy, skill variety, and interdependence.
Additionally, our results and implications are only applicable to the time period assessed and
thus cannot aid in the understanding of job characteristics pre-1975. In addition, the analyses
may have lacked power to detect significant effects. On the other hand, the significant effects
were moderate to strong in magnitude, and our results were based on a larger amount of data
(N = 12,033 to 15,510) than has typically been used to study time-based changes (cf. Highhouse
et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). Next, it is possible that expectations for job enrichment has
changed over time and so are not necessarily comparable between time points (i.e., gamma
change). Unfortunately, because our analyses were conducted at the scale (Study 1) or item
(Study 2) level of analysis, we were unable to examine measurement equivalence. Research

assessing measurement equivalence over time is needed.
Next, the literature on work characteristics has seen something of a renaissance in
recent years (cf. Campion, Mumford, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Fried et al., 2007,
2008; Grant, 2007; Grant & Parker, 2009; Grant et al., 2010, 2011; Humphrey et al., 2007;
Morgeson et al., 2010; Parker et al., 2001). Recent work has focused on additional work
characteristics not included in the original JCM (e.g., knowledge, social, relational, pro-
active, physical characteristics) as well as multifaceted conceptualizations of characteris-
tics such as autonomy. As the literature base examining this expanded set of contextual
characteristics grows, we urge future research to more directly examine changes in other
aspects of work context.
As is often the case with meta-analysis, locating sample characteristics that are reported
consistently across studies is challenging. Although it would have been informative to exam-
ine factors such as flextime plans and the nature of the organizational structure, this informa-
tion is rarely, if ever, presented in primary studies. Additionally, our results might not be
applicable to the description of contextual changes in other countries and cultures, and future
cross-cultural studies are needed in this regard. Finally, to investigate the moderating role of
gender, we used the percentage of males in the samples. Although this approach is not uncom-
mon in meta-analysis (Eagly et al., 1995; Ng et al., 2005), it is not ideal. Future research
replicating the gender findings at the individual level is needed.
Conclusion
Despite frequent reference to the changing nature of work, research has rarely docu-
mented proposed changes. This study provides three large-scale analyses to provide the
first empirical foundation for changes in work context. In light of the key role that context
plays in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors, the contextual features identified here
will play an increasing critical role in management research and practice. Accordingly, it
is critical that management researchers redouble their efforts to understand the implica-
tions of a work context characterized by high levels of employee autonomy, skill variety,
and interdependence.
Notes
1. In total, 399 data points used the JDS and 64 used the JDS-R. The means and standard deviations were similar
for each of the measures (JDS M = 5.07, SD = 0.66; JDS-R M = 5.28, SD = 0.58). For all variables except autonomy,
independent sample t-tests revealed nonsignificant differences in means between the two measures. Because auton-
omy scores were found to vary by measure, the analyses were conducted separately for the JDS and JDS-R, and the
results were similar. In order to increase power and because the inclusion of the JDS-R did not make a substantial
difference in results, we included the JDS-R in the analyses.
2. We restricted our analysis to studies using the original 7-point scale to ensure comparability across studies. Of
the 113 studies identified as usable, only 11 (12.4%) used a 5-point version and met all the other criteria; therefore,
these were removed from the analyses.
3. To determine if interdependence has increased over time, analyses for both items were conducted using
logistic regression to account for the categorical nature of the item response. Nearly identical results were
obtained as those using analysis of variance. Results for the logistic analyses can be obtained from the cor-
responding author.
References
Acemoglu, D., & Autor, D. 2011. Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings.
Handbook of Labor Economics, 4B(4): 1043-1171. doi:10.1016/s0169-7218(11)02410-5
Adams, J., Weakliem, D. L., & August, B. 2011. Hollingshead’s “Four factor index of social status”: From unpub-
lished paper to citation classic. Yale Journal of Sociology, 8: 11-20.
Allan, C., Loudoun, R., & Peetz, D. 2007. Influences on work/non-work conflict. Journal of Sociology, 43: 219-239.
Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family con-
flict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2): 278-308.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.2.278
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., & Huffcutt, A. I. 2001. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior and per-
formance evaluations: Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 193.
Bamberger, P. A. 2008. Beyond contextualization: Using context theories to narrow the micro-macro gap in man-
agement science. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 839-846.
Bowling, N. A., Hoepf, M. R., & LaHuis, D. M. 2011. Mean job satisfaction levels over time: Are things bad and
getting worse? Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/tip/Apr13/08_Bowling.aspx
Breaugh, J. A. 1985. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38: 551-570.
Breaugh, J. A., & Becker, A. S. 1987. Further investigation of the work autonomy scales: Two studies. Human
Relations, 40: 381-400.
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. A., & Fedor, D. B. 2004. Toward an understanding of the relationships among organi-
zational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(5): 868-882. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.868
Campion, M. A., Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. 2005. Work redesign: Eight obstacles and
opportunities. Human Resource Management, 44: 367-390.
Canton, J. C. 2006. The extreme future. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.
Cappelli, P. 1999. The new deal at work: Managing the market-driven workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Cappelli, P., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman, P., & Useem, M. 1997. Change at work. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organization
values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23: 891-906.
Champoux, J. E. 1980. A three sample test of some extensions to the job characteristics model of work motivation.
Academy of Management Journal, 23: 466-478.
Champoux, J. E. 1981. The moderating effect of work context satisfaction on the curvilinear relationship between
job scope and affective response. Human Relations, 34: 503-515.
Champoux, J. E. 1992. A multivariate analysis of curvilinear relationships among job scope, work context satisfac-
tions, and affective outcomes. Human Relations, 45: 87-111.
Chen, C. C., & Chiu, S. F. 2009. The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job characteris-
tics and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 149: 474-494.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. 2012. Generational differences in work-
related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27: 375-394.
Cummings, T. G. 1978. Self-regulating work groups: A sociotechnical synthesis. Academy of Management Review,
3: 625-634.
Cummings, T. G., & Cooper, C. L. 1979. A cybernetic framework for studying occupational stress. Human
Relations, 32: 395-418.
Davis, D. D. 1995. Form, function, and strategy in boundaryless organizations. In A. Howard (Eds.), The changing
nature of work: 112-138. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Jonge, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. 1998. Job characteristics and employee well-being: A test of Warr’s Vitamin Model
in health care workers using structural equation modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19: 387-407.
Dean, J. W., & Snell, S. A. 1991. Integrated manufacturing and job design: Moderating effects of organizational
inertia. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 776-804.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. 2011. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership:
An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64: 7-52. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x
Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. 2008. It’s the nature of the work: Examining behavior-based sources of work-
family conflict across occupations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 883-892.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupa-
tional context on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1228-1241.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Morgeson, F. P. 2009. The milieu of managerial work: An integrative framework
linking work context to role requirements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 972-988.
Drath, W. H., McCauley, C. D., Palus, C. J., Van Velsor, E., O’Connor, P. M., & McGuire, J. B. 2008. Direction,
alignment, commitment: Toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19:
635-653.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S., & Makhijani, M. 1995. Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 111: 3-22.
Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. 2003. Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24: 689-708.
Edwards, J. R. 1992. A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 17: 238-274.
Edwards, J. R. 1996. An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress.
Academy of Management Journal, 39: 292-339.
Families and Work Institute. 2006. Generation & gender in the workplace. Retrieved from http://familiesandwork.
org/site/research/reports/genandgender.pdf
Felin, T., Zenger, T. R., & Tomsik, J. 2009. The knowledge economy: Emerging organizational forms, missing
microfoundations, and key considerations for managing human capital. Human Resource Management, 48:
555-570.
Fletcher, B. C., & Jones, F. 1993. A refutation of Karasek’s demand: Discretion model of occupational stress with
a range of dependent measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 319-330.
Fonner, K. L., & Stache, L. C. 2012. All in a day’s work, at home: Teleworkers’ management of micro role transi-
tions and the work-home boundary. New Technology Work and Employment, 27: 242-257.
French, J. R. P., Jr., Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. 1982. The mechanisms of job stress and strain. London: Wiley.
Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadani, M., & Slowik, L. H. 2007. Job design in temporal context: A career
dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 911-927.
Fried, Y., Hollenbeck, J. R., Slowik, L. H., Tiegs, R. B., & Ben-David, H. A. 1999. Changes in job decision latitude:
The influence of personality and interpersonal satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 233-243.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. 2008. Job design in the new world of work. In S. Cartwright & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of personnel psychology: 587-597. New York, NY: Oxford Press.
Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. 2010. Birth cohort differences in self-esteem, 1988-2008: A cross-
temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 14: 261-268.
Gentry, W. A., Harris, L. S., Baker, B. A., & Leslie, J. B. 2008. Managerial skills: What has changed since the late
1980s. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29: 167-181.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. 2000. The role of time in theory and theory building. Journal of Management, 26:
657-684.
Godin, S. 2009. The last days of cubicle life. TIME, 173: 50-51.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. F. 2005. The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving inconsis-
tent findings. Journal of Management, 31: 301-318. doi:10.1177/0149206304271768
Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management
Review, 32: 393-417.
Grant, A. M. 2008. The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and
boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 108-124.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., & Juillerat, T. 2011. Work matters: Job design in classic and contemporary perspectives.
In S. Zedeck (Eds.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 417-453. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., Parker, S. K., & Frese, M. 2010. Putting job design in context: Introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 145-157.
Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. 2011. Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of
employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 528-550.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspec-
tives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317-375. doi:10.1080/19416520903047327
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. Borsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R. 2003. Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 24: 905-922.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,
60: 159-170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16: 250-279.
Halpern, D. F. 2005. How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health, and save money. Stress
and Health, 21: 157-168.
Hansen, J. C., & Leuty, M. E. 2012. Work values across generations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20: 34-52.
Harrison, D. A., Johns, G., & Martocchio, J. J. 2000. Changes in technology, teamwork, and diversity: New direc-
tions for a new century of absenteeism research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
18: 43-91.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. 1985. Statistical models for meta-analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Helson, H. 1947. Adaptation-level as a frame of reference for the prediction of psychological data. American
Journal of Psychology, 60: 297-313.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. 2005. Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human
Resource Management Review, 15: 69-95.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. 2004. Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task
interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 13: 1-38.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. 1999. Technology and performance. In D. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing
nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation and development: 21-55. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M. J., & Yankelevich, M. 2010. Would you work if you won the lottery? Tracking changes
in the American work ethic. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 349-357.
Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. 2001. Finding an extra day a week: The positive influence of
perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family Relations, 50: 49-58.
Hollingshead, A. B. 1974. Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven,
CT.
Howard, A. (Ed.). 1995. The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: A meta-analytic of the summary and theoretical extension work design literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 1332-1356.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. 1987. A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a measurement artifact.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 69-74.
Inkson, K. 2008. The boundaryless career. In S. Cartwright & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of person-
nel psychology: 545-564. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Inocencio, R. 2013. U.S. programmer outsources own job to China, surfs cat videos. Retrieved from http://edition.
cnn.com/2013/01/17/business/us-outsource-job-china
Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 31-42.
Johns, G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31:
386-408.
Johns, G. 2010. Some unintended consequences of job design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31:361-369.
doi:10.1002/job.669
Juillerat, T. L. 2010. Friends, not foes? Work design and formalization in the modern work context. Journal of
Kaplan, D. M., Wiley, J. W., & Maertz, C. P. 2011. The role of calculative attachment in the relationship between
diversity climate and retention. Human Resource Management, 50: 271-287.
Karasek, R. A. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job design.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 285-308.
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbelt, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. 2003. An atlas of
interpersonal situations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kichuk, S., & Wiesner, W. H. 1998. Work teams: Selecting members for optimal performance. Canadian
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. 2012. Benevolent sexism at work:
Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38:
1835-1866.
Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. 2011. Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students
over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15: 180-198.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. 2010. Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An empirical examination of
generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 265-279.
Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement, and impli-
cations. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. 2005. Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 485-516.
Latham, G. P., & Sue-Chan, C. 1998. Selecting employees in the 21st century: Predicting the contribution of I-O
psychology to Canada. Canadian Psychology, 39: 14-22.
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. 2012. Actual versus perceived generational differ-
ences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19: 341-354.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. 2004. The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.
Livingstone, L. P., Nelson, D. L., & Barr, S. H. 1997. Person-environment fit and creativity: An examination of
supply-value and demand-ability versions of fit. Journal of Management, 23: 119-146.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology: 1297-1349. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Lurie, N. H., & Swaminathan, J. M. 2008. Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on
decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 315-329.
Maney, K. 2009. Marc Andreessen puts his money where his mouth is. Fortune, 160: 38-48.
Matos, K., & Galinsky, E. 2012. National study of employers. Retrieved from Families and Work Institute: http://
familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/NSE_2012.pdf
Mitchell, T. R. 1997. Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 19: 57-149.
Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2003. Work design. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychol-
ogy: 423-452. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C., & Hmurovic, J. L. 2010. Work design in situ: Understanding the role of occupa-
tional and organizational context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 351-360.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a
comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:
1321-1339.
Morgeson, F. P., Johnson, M. D., Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Mumford, T. V. 2006. Understanding reac-
tions to job redesign: A quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of organizational context on
perceptions of performance behavior. Personnel Psychology, 59: 333-363.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Schmit, M. J. 1999. Performance assessment in unique jobs. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos
(Eds.), The changing nature of performance implications for staffing, motivation, and development: 56-86. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. R. 1999. The challenge of staffing a postindustrial workplace. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.),
The changing nature of performance implications for staffing, motivation, and development: 295-324. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. M., & Welch, F. 1993. Occupational change and the demand for skill, 1940-1990. American Economic
Review, 83: 122-126.
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. 2010. Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on millennials’
organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 225-238.
Nadler, D. A., Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. 1979. Managing organizational behavior. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown and Company.
National Academy of Sciences. 1999. The changing nature of work: Implications for occupational analysis.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. 2012. Job outlook 2012. Retrieved from www.naceweb.org/
job_outlook_2012/
Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. 2010. New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millen-
nial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 281-292.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career
success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. 2010. Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 463-479.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. 1993. Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114:
29-51.
O’Toole, J., & Lawler, E. E. 2006. The new American workplace. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated
model of work design. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74: 413-440.
Patterson, F. 2001. Developments in work psychology: Emerging issues and future trends. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 74: 381-390.
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. 1991. Task interdependence and extra role behaviors: A test of the mediating
effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 838-844.
Pilcher, S. 2012. The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: A meta-analysis. Human
Resource Management, 51: 709-732.
Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. 1991. A new meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Borman, C. A., & Birjulin, A. 1999. Organizational politics and organizational
support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. 2002. Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attrac-
tion. Personnel Psychology, 55: 111-136.
Real, K., Mitnick, A. D., & Maloney, W. F. 2010. More similar than different: Millennials in the U.S. building
trades. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 303-313.
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 22:1-13.
Royal, M., & Agnew, T. 2011. The enemy of engagement: Put an end to workplace frustration and get the most from
your employees. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Ryan, A. M., Schmitt, M. J., & Johnson, R. 1996. Attitudes and effectiveness: Examining relations at an organiza-
tional level. Personnel Psychology, 49: 853-882.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. 1994. Combining estimates of effect size. In H. M. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis: 261-281. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. 2002. Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new
millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 363-382.
Society for Human Resource Management. 2008a. SHRM 2007 symposium on the workforce readiness of the future
U.S. labor pool: Workforce readiness executive summary. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Society for Human Resource Management. 2008b. Workforce readiness weekly survey. Retrieved from www.shrm.
org/surveys
Society for Human Resource Management, & WSJ.com/Careers. 2008. Critical skills needs and resources for the
changing workforce: Keeping skills competitive. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/
articles/pages/criticalskillsneeds.aspx
Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. 2008. Beyond the three-component model of organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 70-83.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications
for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20: 503-530.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. 2000. Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Swanberg, J. 2005. Job-family role strain among low-wage workers. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26:
143-158.
Swanberg, J., & Simmons, L. 2008. Quality jobs in the new millennium: Incorporating flexible work options as a
strategy to assist working families. Social Science Review, 82: 119-147.
Tam, Y. M., Korczynski, M., & Frenkel, S. 2002. Organizational and occupational commitment: Knowledge work-
ers in large corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 39: 775-801.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospec-
tive employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 658-672.
Twenge, J. M. 2000. The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 1007-1021.
Twenge, J. M. 2001. Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-
analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 133-145.
Twenge, J. M. 2011. The duality of individualism: Attitudes toward women, Generation Me, and the method of
cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35: 193-196.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. 2001. Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5: 321-344.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. 2010. Birth cohort differences in the monitoring the future dataset and else-
where: Further evidence for Generation Me—Commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan 2010. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 5: 81-88.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. L. 2010. Generational differences in work values:
Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36:
1117-1142.
Twenge, J. M., & Im, C. 2007. Changes in the need for social approval, 1958-2001. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41: 171-189.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. 2008. Egos inflating over time: A
cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality, 76: 875-902.
Twenge, J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. 2002. Age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and birth cohort differences
on the Children’s Depression Inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111: 578-588.
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L. Q., & Im, C. 2004. It’s beyond my control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing
externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8: 308-319.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1975-2012. Statistical abstracts of the United States: 1975-2011. Retrieved from http://www.
census.gov/compendia/statab/
Van der Spiegel, J. 1995. New information technologies and changes in work. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing
nature of work: 97-111. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Warr, P. 1987. Work, unemployment, and mental health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Warr, P. 1990. Decision latitude, job demands, and employee well-being. Work and Stress, 4: 285-294.
Winograd, M., & Hais, M. D. 2011. Millennial momentum: How a new generation is remaking America. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wong, S. S., DeSanctis, G., & Staudenmayer, N. 2007. The relationship between task interdependency and role
stress: A revisit of the job demands–control model. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 284-303.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 1995. Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal,
38: 1288-1309.

Q053 Wegman 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q053 Wegman 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

654545

Placing Job Characteristics in Context: Cross-

Proposed Changes in Work and Workers

Changes in workers. Management research investigating changes in organizationally

Study 1: Changes in the Core Job Characteristics

Hypothesis 4: Mean levels of feedback perceptions have increased since 1975.

Hypothesis 5: Mean levels of autonomy perceptions have increased since 1975.

Research Question 1: Will changes in job characteristics differ as a function of occupational

Study 2: Changes in Interdependence

Hypothesis 7: Mean levels of interdependence perceptions have increased since 1985.

Study 3: Changes in Work vs. Changes in Workers

Criteria for Inclusion

9 Higher executives, proprietors of large businesses, major professionals High

Occupational complexity. Each primary study reporting occupational or job-type infor-

Occupational Complexity Controls and Moderation

Sample Gender and Changes in Job Characteristics

Note: k = number of independent samples, B = unstandardized coefficient; SE B = standard error of B; β =

Note: Male = 1; Female = 0; k = number of independent samples; B = unstandardized coefficient; SE B = standard

Note: Cases are weighted by the inverse variance.

Supplemental Nonlinear Analysis and Results

Measure and Analysis

Note: Adjusted standard errors are in parentheses following effect sizes.

Main Findings: Describing the Context of Modern Work

Changes in Work, Not Workers

Implications for Research

(Study 2) level of analysis, we were unable to examine measurement equivalence. Research

You might also like