DONE: Job Redesign Flashcards
Holman & Axtell (2016)
Job redesign field experiment testing the redesign including +autonomy & feedback, which increased employee well-being, psychological contract fulfillment, and supervisor-rated job performance)
Hackman & Oldham (1976)
Testing a model for job redesign.
Core job dimensions:
Skill variety
Task identity: seeing the whole of what you’re creating)
Task sig: The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the
lives or work of other people (within or outside the org, sooner or later).
(all 3 lead to meaningfulness of work)
Autonomy -> Experienced responsibility
Feedback -> Knowledge of results of work activities
These in turn lead to increased: Internal motivation Perf. Satisfaction with work And lower absenteeism & turnover.
Tested the model via mediation.
And whether effects are moderated by employees’ growth need strength.
people who have high need for personal growth and development (high GNS) will respond more positively to a job
high in motivating potential than people with low growth need strength.
Model was supported and substantial evidence for moderating effect of GNS.
Tims et al. (2013)
This longitudinal study examined whether employees can impact their own well-being by crafting their
job demands and resources.
Based on JDR, we hypothesized that
employee job crafting would have an impact on work engagement, job satisfaction, and burnout through
changes in job demands and job resources. Data was collected in a chemical plant at three time points
with one month in between the measurement waves.
Results showed that employees who crafted their job resources in the first month of the study showed
an increase in their structural and social resources over the course of the study (2 months).
This increase
in job resources was positively related to employee well-being (increased engagement and job satisfaction, and decreased burnout).
Crafting job demands did not result in a change in job demands, but results revealed direct effects of crafting challenging demands on increases in well-being.
Grant et al. (2011)
Review on Job design
Recommendations:
-Qualitative studies: Identifying new job
characteristics and mechanisms. In addition,
we hope to see more qualitative studies in the job design literature.
–For example, qualitative studies have facilitated the discovery of the importance of informal social interaction in job experiences.
Longitudinal survey and experience-sampling studies: Supporting internal and external validity when experiments are not possible or not ethical. The job design literature also features surprisingly few longitudinal studies.
-Multimethod, multisource designs: Triangulating results.
Morgeson & Humphrey (2006) Big model of job redesign
Four broad categories:
- Task (3task, auton, fb [the 5 JCM traits])
- Physical (ergonomics, phys demands, equip & tools)
- Knowledge (Job complexity, problem solving, specialization) (Campion, 1988)
- Social (soc support, interdependence, intxn outside org (such as w/ clients, customers, or
suppliers) & contact w/ beneficiaries)
Mediators:
Experienced meaning, responsibility, role-breadth self-efficacy, social worth
Proactive behaviors:
Job crafting & role expansion
Moderators: culture (e.g., collectivistic), power-distance, indy diffs like Big5, values & gender, KSAOs And UNCERTAINTY (job crafting of handing decision power from supervisor to worker may not help much if the job's simple & unpredictable)
Xie & Johns (1995)
Research suggests
that jobs high in complexity and information processing involve considerable mental demands and
challenges, and can thus serve as sources of both stress and satisfaction.
Humphrey et al. (2007)
In a meta-analysis,
Humphrey et al. (2007) found that all four social
characteristics were associated with job satisfaction
Campbell and Fiske (1959)
articulated, the internal and external
validity of our conclusions is ultimately dependent on our ability to triangulate results across different methods and sources of data.
Example: measures of psychological, behavioral and physiological outcomes
Katz & Kahn (1978)
Classical ORT focuses on the roles that individuals enact in social systems that are
pre-planned, task-oriented, and hierarchical, and therefore form a vital function in the
achievement of organisational goals.
-According to ORT, the assigned work-roles must be conferred by the firm
and adopted by each individual employee in order for an organisation to function
effectively as a goal-oriented social entity. As a social entity, an organisation comprises
a nexus of distinct functional groups of employees that have specific work-roles to
enact. Under ORT, these functional groups help to define a “role-set” for the individual
employee and determine the specific role-behaviours the employee is expected to enact
(Katz and Kahn, 1966).
-The division of labor principle necessarily requires employees to enact specific
work roles in order to perform their required tasks effectively and efficiently (Katz and
Kahn, 1978). They further stated that organisations are essentially a network ofemployees enacting specific roles that are “expected” and “required” by others in the institution. If they diverge from roles, repercussions occur.
-Where the repercussions are punitive for the employee, their continued ability and/or commitment to their assigned roles can be compromised.
-Another challenge is the increasing roles employees have outside of work, which may impinge on work roles.
-The shift away from the “nuclear” family structure with its single breadwinner has
arguably been one of the most marked societal changes in the past 30 years.
The role-episode review process is necessarily dynamic, and is underpinned by four
assumptions:
(1) that an employee will “take” or accept a role that is conferred on them by
members of the organisation (the role-taking assumption); and
(2) there will be consensus regarding the expectations of all roles (the
role-consensus assumption); and
(3) that employees will comply to the behaviour that is expected (the
role-compliance assumption); and
(4) the belief that role-conflict will arise if expectations are not consensual (the
role-conflict assumption) (Biddle, 1986).
Wickham & Parker (2007)
Lit review that summarized & examined if assumptions of Org Role Theory still hold:
The role-episode review process is necessarily dynamic, and is underpinned by four
assumptions:
(1) that an employee will “take” or accept a role that is conferred on them by
members of the organisation (the role-taking assumption); and
(2) there will be consensus regarding the expectations of all roles (the
role-consensus assumption); and
(3) that employees will comply to the behaviour that is expected (the
role-compliance assumption); and
(4) the belief that role-conflict will arise if expectations are not consensual (the
role-conflict assumption)
– It was found that three assumptions underpinning classical ORT are inadequate to
account for the array of roles enacted by employees and the manner in which they impact on
working-life. The research suggests that ORT needs to incorporate the key themes of “multi-faceted
employee”, “employer recognition/facilitation” and “compartmentalisation” into its assumptions to account for contemporary HRM issues.
There is a required recognition that employees (both
actual and potential) are multi-faceted is incorporated into the model in three important
ways. In the pre-employment phase, the model now requires the employer to attain a
level of understanding of the potential employee’s family and non-family roles that
they need to enact for their self-validation, self recognition and overall wellbeing.
The research recommends Role theory incorporate 3 ideas: “multi-faceted employee”,
“employer recognition/facilitation”, and “compartmentalisation”.
-The first key theme
related to the “multi-faceted employee”, reflecting respondents’
apparent want not to be considered as one-dimensional, or that they enacted “only work
and Family-based roles”.
-Example: self-validation respondents felt that the enacted roles reinforced their sense of self-worth.
Self-definition refers to how the respondents felt the enacted roles reflected them as an
individual. Relationship management refers to the extent that respondents felt that
they were able to interact with their self-defined support networks.
The second key theme related to the employer recognition and facilitation. Employer
recognition/facilitation refers to the extent that employers were aware of the existence of non-work & non-family roles.
and importance of the non-work roles that employees enact. This theme had three
components: “recognition of employee’s non-work roles”, “open communication”, and
“employer assistance”
Open communication referred to the extent that employees and employers
communicated in terms of these roles and how it may potentially impact on the
employee’s working-life. Employer assistance referred to the extent that employers
assisted employees in facilitating the enactment of non-work roles.
The third key theme related to compartmentalisation. Compartmentalisation refers to
the attempts by employees to minimise the impact between their working-life and the
enactment of their non-work roles. Specifically, respondents reporting
compartmentalisation efforts indicated that they were doing so in order to reduce
role-conflict in their working-life.
-Compartmentalisation tactics included both cognitive and behavioural components.
Cognitively, respondents reported their compartmentalisation efforts as the selective
non-disclosure of non-work roles to their colleagues. Behaviourally, respondents
reported their compartmentalisation efforts as including refusal to work overtime,
refusal to “take work home.”
First, the recognition that employees (both
actual and potential) are multi-faceted is incorporated into the model in three important
ways. For example, in the pre-employment phase, the model now requires the employer to attain a
level of understanding of the potential employee’s family and non-family roles that
they need to enact for their self-validation, self recognition and overall wellbeing.
The reconceptualised model recognises that unreconciled
role-conflict can be resolved through the employees’ effective compartmentalisation of
work and non-work roles, and that it can effectively substitute for “role consensus” in
the employment relationship.
