Job Enrichment

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

before an enrichment program is begun. seized the opportunity. A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in some situations where a Performance Technician is faced with a request for motivational training. Keenan. To date. "greater than expected". and feedback for the participants. (n.because of a lack of benefits. These problems can include a perception of too great a cost. attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their skills and be positioned for advancement. accountability. worker needs and organizational needs must be analyzed and acted upon. not just more work for them to do. from http://www. stated the accomplishments were. positive results can be directly tied to a program that addressed the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding to staff. but rather due to implementation 2004.3) When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment program begun in 2002. but…researchers report that some people they expected to resist.html. and potential job classification changes (Cunningham and feedback. the following questions should be asked: Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility. significance. 1990). lack of long-term commitment of resources. Having a voluntary program contributed as References Brown. and opportunities to learn? What techniques can be implemented without changing the job classification plan? What techniques would require changes in the job classification plan? (p. variety. challenge. According to Ms. Karen Keenan. guidance. R. Design Jobs that motivate and develop people. The Training Generalist program has resulted in three successful participants to date. all three Training Generalists have experienced promotions and additional recognition while affording Ms. Some people are very resistant to more responsibility or to opportunities for personal growth. In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results.). Retrieved February 14. Learning Manager with Bank of America. According to Cunningham and Eberle (1990). as well as to proper planning. Keenan's team financial results and workload flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved. . Ralph Brown (2004) summed it up very nicely: Job enrichment doesn't work for everyone. Enriching jobs is a particularly effective way to develop employees provided the jobs are truly enriched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Critical Psychological States . Skill variety refers to the number of different skills a specific job requires. 6. The job characteristics theory suggests that employees may be more internally motivated.) custodian given the opportunity to repair building damage. satisfied with their overall job and personal growth opportunities. task identity. task significance. Scheduling– Employees have the freedom to schedule some part of their own work. Autonomy is the level of choice. Direct Communication Authority– Communicate directly with people who use his or her output. a relationship between job characteristics and the employee's motivation was found. The theory was originally intended as a way to evaluate jobs to see if they should be redesigned to increase employee motivation and production. Job Characteristics Theory In 1976.4. generate high quality work.) nurse ordering medical supplies. Ex. etc. Ex.There are three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness. Experienced meaningfulness is the . and have a lower absence and/or turnover when all are followed by a well-developed job design.There are five core job dimensions: skill variety. with each of the components working together to influence employee motivation. freedom. and independence employees have to do their jobs. Task significance refers to how important a job is and its impact on others. autonomy. Unique Experience– Qualities or features that are unique. Job feedback is the direct and clear information received by the employee regarding the effectiveness of their performance. Core Job Dimensions . result in positive work outcomes. Hackman and Oldham developed the Job Characteristics Theory. experienced responsibility. Ex. and job feedback. The job characteristics theory has three primary components: core job dimensions. These states are dependent upon the characteristics of the job and are moderated by an individual’s internal desire for growth (Hackman & Oldham. 1976). Task Identity is the extent to which a job requires completing the whole process from beginning to end. and knowledge. 5.) employees are responsible for meeting their deadlines. in return.) an employee reporting directly to quality control. Ex. Personal Accountability– An employee is accountable for his results. and work outcomes.) whether to work 8 hours straight with no lunch or work 9 hours and take an hour lunch. which should. Control Over Resources– Employees may have their own budgets to order supplies. critical psychological states. which took the idea of intrinsic motivation further by defining psychological states that must be present in order for workers to be motivated. After creation of the theory. Ex. 7.

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

1976). This sequence is explicit in Hackman and Oldham's (1980)explanation of the 'motivating potential' of jobs.. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. Increasing the motivating potential signifies the degree to which jobs are 'enriched' in that they provide for the fulfillment of growth needs (Gardner and Cummings. 16. 25-279 as cited in Redmond (2010) Job characteristics theory predicts attitudes and behavior based on the reactions of job incumbents to their tasks.Graphic of Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation is from Hackman. in turn. & Oldham. . 1988). Motivation through the design of work: Test of the theory. The impact of a job on a person is moderated by a person's needs(Oldham. jobholders will be internally motivated to perform wellbecause certain needs will be met. Growth needs. Oldham et al. focus on the development of human potential and the desire for personal growth and increased competence (Alderfer. 1976.1972). J. According to Hackman and Oldham (1980).. G. if certain characteristics are present in a job. (1976).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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