Personnel

Feb 1990 v67 n2 p56(6)

Page 1

A guide to job enrichment and redesign.

by J. Barton Cunningham and Ted Eberle
The use of traditional methods for job design and redesign can have a negative impact on
productivity and employee morale. Four alternatives to the traditional approach are job
enrichment, the job characteristics model, Japanese-style management, and quality-of-worklife
approaches. The theories of job enrichment and the job characteristics model are based on job
content. Japanese-style management techniques focus on strong teamwork, job harmony, and
group goals. The quality-of-life approaches are based on improving an organizations design. A
suggested procedure for implementing a large-scale job redesign program involving 12 steps is
outlined.
COPYRIGHT American Management Association
1990
A Guide to Job Enrichment And Redesign
As many human resources professionals have discovered,
the traditional approach to job design can adversely affect
their organizations productivity as well as the motivation
and job satisfaction of employees. To overcome these
problems, various alternative approaches to job design
have been suggested, ranging from Japanese-style
management and quality circles to more general
applications of organization development and job
enrichment. Typically, these approaches seek to improve
an organizations coordination, productivity, and overall
product quality and to respond to employees needs for
learning, challenge, variety, increased responsibility, and
achievement.
Four of the more popular design alternatives - job
enrichment, the job-characteristics model, Japanese-style
management, and quality-of-worklife approaches - are
briefly described below. (The motivational assumptions,
critical techniques, and implementation procedures of
these alternatives are summarized in Exhibit 1.) The
remainder of the article focuses on the problems HR
professionals may encounter when attempting to
implement any of these approaches.
The Alternatives in a Nutshell
Frederick Herzbergs two-factor theory is one of the most
well-known approaches to job enrichment. He suggested
that the factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and
motivation) are separate and distinct from "hygiene"
factors, which lead to job dissatisfaction.
Growth and motivation factors include achievement,
recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and
advancement. Hygiene factors, in contrast, are associated
with the work context or environment. The most important
hygiene factor is company policy and administration. The
second most important factor is technical supervision. An
incompetent supervisor who lacks knowledge of the job or

the ability to delegate responsibility and teach, for

example, can cause dissatisfaction. Work conditions,
interpersonal relations with supervisors, salary, and the
lack of recognition and/or achievement also can cause
dissatisfaction.
According to Herzberg, motivating employees is entirely
different from reducing job dissatisfaction. Reducing job
dissatisfaction will not increase motivation but merely
reduce the level of employees dissatisfaction.
The job-characteristics model is based on the idea that
people will respond differently to the same job and that it is
possible to alter a jobs character to increase motivation,
satisfaction, and performance. The initial research on job
characteristics was concerned with the relationship
between certain objective attributes of tasks (such as
amount of task variety, level of autonomy, amount of
interaction required to carry out task activities and the
number of opportunities for optional interaction, level of
knowledge and skill required, and amount of responsibility
entrusted to the job holder) and employee reactions to the
tasks. Five job characteristics were developed in later
research: variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and job-based feedback.
The job-characteristics model seeks to structure work so
that it can be performed effectively and is personally
rewarding and satisfying. According to this model,
matching people with their jobs will reduce the need to
urge them to perform well. Instead, workers will try to do
well because it is rewarding and satisfying to do so.
Japanese-style management practices have been
associated with high productivity, low turnover, and low
absenteeism. They evolved as a product of the
U.S.-guided post-World War II development of Japan
(which discouraged unionization) as well as of Japans
cultural heritage. However, no body of theory or scientific
evidence clearly illustrates that Japanese organization
design techniques will produce higher productivity and job
satisfaction in either Japanese or American work settings.
The Japanese management approach treats employees

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP
Information Integrity

Personnel

Feb 1990 v67 n2 p56(6)

Page 2

A guide to job enrichment and redesign.

according to family-like norms. Among those norms, "wa"
(harmony), is the component most often emphasized by
companies. "Wa" refers to a form of teamwork or group
consciousness. Individual employee actions are not
dominant in Japanese industry; in fact, they may be
discouraged because of the competition they can generate
among team members.
The development of organizational cohesiveness seems to
be a major objective of Japanese human resources
policies. Japanese companies seek to hire employees who
have moderate views and a harmonious personality as
well as ability to do the job. The socialization process
begins with an initial training program, which may last up
to six months and is geared toward familiarizing new
employees with the company. Employees can be
transferred to learn new skills; transfers are also part of a
long-range, experience-building program through which
the organization grooms future managers. By rotating from
job to job, employees become increasingly immersed in
the companys philosophy and culture.
Under conditions of lifetime employment, rapid promotion
is unlikely unless an organization is expanding
dramatically. Because of this limited upward mobility,
companies encourage lateral job rotation. These carefully
planned transfers provide some status and recognition
since not all jobs at the same hierarchical level are equal
in their centrality or importance to the organizations
activities. This movement provides or withholds
opportunities to learn skills that are required for future
formal promotions.
Quality-of-worklife approaches refer to the many
workplace experiments concerned with improving an
organizations design. The elements that are relevant to an
individuals quality of worklife include the task, the physical
work environment, the social environment within the
organization, the administrative system, and the
relationship between life on and off the job. The term
"quality of worklife" can be thought of as a replacement for
such previous terms as job design and socio-technical
designs.
Quality-of-worklife designs do not offer any standard set of
principles because they depend on the needs of the
technology as well as those of the individuals in the social
system. Essential to any quality-of-worklife application is
an understanding of the needs of the organizations social
and technical systems. The company must be committed
to understanding the relevant problems and issues and
adapting appropriated theories and techniques. It also
must recognize that individuals need to be involved in
designing the organizations they work in and that the
design may have to take into account an individuals

capacity to act in a certain way at a specific point in time.

No design will last forever; the process of redesign will
need to take into account new technologies and growing
individual capacities.
Because quality-of-worklife designs are based on the
individuals ability to make judgments about what is or is
not desirable in the workplace, managers and employees
must maintain an open dialog about the way the workplace
is designed and managed. Discussions can focus on
improving wages, hours of work, job security, safety, and
other work conditions. Employees "choices" can lead to
the development of particular kinds of jobs and
organizations that enable people to develop their abilities
and fulfill their needs in the workplace. The resulting jobs
may present greater opportunities for variety, challenge,
responsibility, and growth.
Why Problems Arise
Our experience with job enrichment and design ideas has
revealed several types of implementation problems. For
example, organizations sometimes are reluctant to commit
resources to longterm programs of change that maximize
worker input and participation. Some top executives
believe that job enrichment involves too many changes to
a job-classification plan and costs too much money.
We have had some limited success in encouraging job
analysts to make minor adjustments when they develop
new job descriptions and refocus job-classification plans.
Although our suggestions may compromise the integrity of
the pure theories of job design, we recognize that change
may be possible if we choose and adapt our design
techniques according to an organizations specific setting.
To classify a job, job analysts normally collect information
and then develop a job description, which becomes a
guide for determining the employees work, training needs,
and compensation. Job analysis also attempts to describe
and coordinate an organizations broader structure and
objectives, the tasks and skills required to achieve those
objectives, and the meaningful grouping of tasks and skills
into specific jobs.
Several approaches to job analysis focus on the singular
requirement of arranging job duties to respond to efficiency
and effectiveness criteria. Technological developments
have made it easier to break down jobs into simpler, more
specialized tasks. Work is designed in such a way that
tasks are simple; they are easy for everyone to perform
and do not rely on singular or gifted personnel.
Why cant job descriptions be used for focusing
job-enrichment efforts? Some job-analysis procedures

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP
Information Integrity

Personnel

Feb 1990 v67 n2 p56(6)

Page 3

A guide to job enrichment and redesign.

provide information on job features such as variety,
autonomy, challenge, feedback, and responsibility. The
assumption is that intrinsically rewarding jobs will make
employees more satisfied and productive.
Job-analysis procedures need to take into account the
effective grouping of tasks as well as employee motivation
and development. They must address the technical
requirements of coordinating people, techniques, tools,
and methods used to accomplish a set of tasks as well as
the social requirements of responding to employee needs,
expectations, and feelings about the work setting. An
effective job design meets both the requirements of the
tasks and the social and psychological needs of the
workers.
This sociotechnical concept grew out of the post-World
War II coal-mining studies by the Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations. It suggests that a design principle
cannot respond exclusively to the singular requirements of
either technical effectiveness or social satisfaction. What
counts is a balanced recognition of each systems needs,
not the satisfaction of one need at the expense of the
other. A sociotechnical assumption implies that a job
cannot be designed with machinelike standards and
minimal variety, challenge, and change. Moreover, it
should not be designed to respond solely to an individuals
wishes, idiosyncrasies, or selfish habits.
This sociotechnical concept suggests that job design can
make use of many of the techniques from the four models
described above. Which techniques to use depends on the
particular job and culture. In some organizations, it may be
more appropriate to highlight concepts of design that
emphasize team grouping; in others, to develop designs
that focus on more variety and participation.
Some Questions to Consider
The sociotechnical concept suggests that different
job-design approaches may be appropriate for different
change efforts. Generally the job-enrichment and
job-characteristics models focus on redesigning a job
structure using principles that alter the way the individual
carries out his or her work. They are "micro" models of
organizational and job design in that they deal with
operational/production jobs in which tasks can be defined
and broken down. These approaches are limited to
redesigning the way in which work is carried out; they do
not generally focus on controversial issues such as pay
and labor relations.
Japanese-style management and quality-of-worklife
programs focus more on the total organization, with
particular emphasis on improving the level of consultation

with employees. They are "macro" models of organization

design, although individual applications may emphasize
only specific aspects of the organization. Our experience
with quality-of-worklife approaches illustrates some
difficulties. We probably do not have enough data to
provide any evidence of the difficulties of applying
Japanese-style management in an American setting.
Generally companies have been much more interested in
applying quality-circle ideas than in trying to make U.S.
organizations more like those in Japan.
The sociotechnical concept also suggests that design
approaches must respond to worker needs as well as to
specific conditions or prerequisites within an organization.
Exhibit 2 suggests that job-enrichment and
job-characteristics approaches may be more appropriate
when workers express interest in gaining more
responsibility, growth, and the like. Some enrichment
techniques may be appropriate for the short term, while
others may be limited by the organizations technology or
job-classification plan. Thus, when introducing
enrichment-type programs, the following three questions
should be asked:
* Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility,
variety, feedback, challenge, accountability, significance,
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?
Japanese-style management and quality-of-worklife
programs also have unique prerequisites. Both focus on
enriching the workers job and cultivating the individual to
make him or her part of the organization. Interesting work
is only part of a larger package that focuses on career, life,
and identity with the organization.
We do not mean to imply that Japanese-style
management and sociotechnical-change programs are
similar. Although team decision making is prominent in
both programs, Japanese teams or problem-solving
groups are consultational in nature. Quality-of-worklife
programs strive to develop semiautonomous work groups
and shift power to workers.
This difference is central to an understanding of the role of
teamwork in these approaches. The
Japanese-management management approach suggests
that the organization take responsibility for the careers and
lives of its members. Quality-of-worklife programs imply a
democracy in which workers take responsibility for the

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP
Information Integrity

Personnel

Feb 1990 v67 n2 p56(6)

Page 4

A guide to job enrichment and redesign.

organization.
In assessing the organizations readiness for
Japanese-style management or quality-of-worklife
programs, a company should answer these questions:
* Do individuals want to work in teams to solve problems
or make decisions?
* Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility,
variety, feedback, challenge, accountability, significance,
and opportunities to learn?
* Do workers need to learn and grow in the organization, to
be part of its identity, and to assist in its corporate future?
* What organization-structure adjustments are needed to
respond to these design suggestions?
* How should the job-classification plan be altered to
respond to these structural changes?

rough idea of what the job consists of. We have learned to

rely on a process of open-ended interviewing to probe
about the job and the many underlying human elements
making it up. Each social system is unique, and much of
the information about worker preferences can best be
derived from such interviews.
4. Define the unique characteristics or constraints. Each
organization has particular characteristics or constraints,
such as the age of the work-force, the work setting, and
the job-classification plan. These characteristics should be
identified.
5. Develop a clustering of tasks. How do work tasks and
personal skills cluster on the basis of similar behaviors or
common requirements? Which tasks may be meaningfully
grouped together and defined as a job?
6. Develop a list of intervention techniques. In devising
such a list, it is helpful to pick the techniques that are
considered relevant based on the approaches defined in
this article.

A Suggested Procedure
We have used the following procedure in organizations
that have been reluctant to begin large-scale job-design
programs:
1. Define the systems goals. Select the organization,
system, or subsystem to be studied. Define which groups
of workers will be involved and how they relate to each
other. What are the broad objectives of the larger
organization - the department, plant, and company - of
which these jobs are a part? How is the organization
structured to accomplish these goals? What is the current
job-classification structure?
2. Define the relevant tasks and activities. What work tasks
lead to the accomplishment of the organizations
objectives? What unique managerial or personal skills are
required? What unique needs and aspirations do workers
in these jobs have? Managers should keep in mind the
function of the organization and the need to balance social
and technical requirements.
3. Interview. In conducting a job analysis, an analyst gets
information from the following sources: direct observation
or on-the-job experience; interviews with job incumbents
and their supervisors; meetings with higher-level
management and human resources representatives;
questionnaires or checklists completed by job incumbents,
their supervisors, and/or others familiar with the job;
psychological tests and ratings of requirements; and other
sources of available information such as training manuals
and existing job guides. The primary goal is to obtain a

7. Relate techniques to requirements and assumptions.

Managers can brainstorm to develop a list of techniques
and principles that may be appropriate for the job clusters.
8. Define the appropriate level of implementation.
Managers should clarify how each technique should be
implemented in the organization.
9. Pull it together in a picture. At this stage it is sometimes
useful to draw a picture of what has been accomplished
thus far.
10. Screen generalities. Screen the list of techniques to
eliminate generalities or vague statements that do not
specify implementation plans.
11. Develop a process of implementation. The process of
implementation is as important as the theory of design. It is
important to define the forces that may aid implementation
and those that may hinder it. It is also necessary to screen
the list of design techniques for those that cannot be
implemented without changing the job-classification plan.
A separate process of implementation is required for
job-classification plan changes.
12. Adapt the job description and process of design. The
job description and process should be reviewed and
altered as the organizations critical requirements change.
Any discussion of approaches to job and organization
design must take into account an organizations needs and
requirements, paying particular attention to employees

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP
Information Integrity

Personnel

Feb 1990 v67 n2 p56(6)

Page 5

A guide to job enrichment and redesign.

interpersonal and job preferences. We have highlighted
the prerequisites necessary for implementing certain
approaches to job and organization design. Our underlying
assumption is that the success of job-design ideas often
depends on the organizations ability to change job
descriptions.
J. Barton Cunningham is an associate professor at the
University of Victoria in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
He is currently working on projects in crisis management,
entrepreneurship, management skills, and quality of
worklife. He has a Ph.D. degree in management and
administrative studies from the University of Southern
California. Ted Eberle has worked as a personnel
manager and human resources consultant. He is now
vice-president of human resources at a hospital in Alberta,
Canada. He has a masters degree in public administration
from the University of Victoria

- Reprinted with permission. Additional copying is prohibited. -

GALE GROUP
Information Integrity