JOB AND TEAM DESIGN:IMPLEMENTATION ADVICE FOR JOB AND TEAM DESIGN

IMPLEMENTATION ADVICE FOR JOB AND TEAM DESIGN

When to Consider Design and Redesign of Work

There are at least eight situations when design or redesign of work should be considered.

1. When starting up or building a new plant or work unit. This is the most obvious application of job design.

2. During innovation or technological change. Continual innovation and technological change are important for survival in most organizations. These changes in procedures and equipment mean there are changes in job design. This is not unique to manufacturing jobs. The introduction of electronic equipment is changing many office jobs. Proper consideration of job design is needed to ensure that the innovations are successful.

3. When markets, products, or strategies change. Modern consumer and industrial markets change rapidly. To keep up with changing demands, organizations must often change marketing strat- egies and product line mixes. Such changes can affect many jobs throughout an organization and require redesign. For example, salespersons’ territories, product line responsibilities, and compensation packages may need to be modified to reflect changing strategies. Production workers’ jobs may also require redesign as styles and quantities of products change.

4. During reorganization. Reorganizations of management hierarchies and organizational units frequently mean changes in job assignments or responsibilities of many employees due to the creation and elimination of jobs. In order to ensure a successful reorganization, principles of proper job design must be considered.

5. During growth or downsizing. As an organization grows, new jobs are formed. These jobs are often designed haphazardly, reflecting a collection of tasks other employees do not have time to do. Likewise, during downsizing, jobs are eliminated and some tasks are included in other jobs. This can lead to unfavorable changes in the designs of the remaining jobs.

6. When jobs are needed for special positions or persons. Even existing organizations create new positions. Also, new persons may be hired to fill positions that have different backgrounds, skills, and capabilities than former employees. Both these situations may create a need to reevaluate job-design. For example, hiring handicapped workers may require that managers redesign jobs for them. Frequently, special jobs are also designed for newcomers to the or- ganization, for special administrative assistants, or for temporary assignments.

7. When the workforce or labor markets change. Changing demographics, education levels, and economic conditions affecting employment levels can cause changes in the quality and size of the organization’s labor force and labor markets from which the organization hires new work- ers. Jobs may need to be redesigned to fit a workforce whose average education level has increased over time, or physically demanding jobs may need to be redesigned to accommodate increasing numbers of older or female workers.

8. When there are performance, safety, or satisfaction problems. It is quite common for the employee to be blamed when there are problems with performance, safety, or satisfaction. In many of these instances, the job design is at least partly to blame. Several examples may illustrate this. Human error was named as the cause of the nearly catastrophic nuclear power plant incident at Three Mile Island noted previously, but the design of the operator’s job might have been the actual cause. In a study of a wood products company (Campion and Thayer 1985), one sawmill job with multiple employees involved pulling two-by-fours off a moving belt and placing them in racks. The employees were described as lazy and apathetic. But examination of the job from a motivational design point of view revealed that it lacked variety and any significant skill requirements. It was unimportant, repetitive, and boring. It is no surprise that the employees were not motivated or satisfied. In that same study, a plywood plant required an employee to align strips of wood on a moving belt just before they entered the dryer. One time when dryer utilization was not up to standard, the supervisor concluded that the incumbent was negligent and gave her a written reprimand. But the job was very poorly designed from a biological perspective. The employee had to operate a foot pedal while standing and thus spent all day with most of the body weight on one foot. She also had to bend over constantly while extending her arms to adjust the strips of wood, resulting in bio- mechanical stresses on the back, arms, and legs. Everyone hated the job, yet the employee was blamed.

As a final example, the authors discovered that a personnel-recruiter job in a large company was in need of improved mechanistic design. The job involved running the engineering co-op program that consisted of hundreds of engineering students coming to the company and returning to school each semester. The recruiter had to match employees’ interests with managers’ needs, monitor eve- ryone’s unique schedule, keep abreast of the requirements of different schools, administer salary plans and travel reimbursement, and coordinate hire and termination dates. The job was completely beyond the capability of any recruiter. The solution involved having a team of industrial engineers study the job and apply the mechanistic approach to simplify tasks and streamline procedures.

It is clear that some types of jobs are naturally predisposed to be well designed on some job- design approaches and poorly designed on others. It may be in these latter regards that the greatest opportunities exist to benefit from job redesign. For example, many factory, service, and otherwise low-skilled jobs lend themselves well to mechanistic design, but the ideas of specialization and simplification of tasks and skill requirements can be applied to other jobs in order to reduce staffing difficulties and training requirements. Jobs can often be too complex or too large for employees, leading to poor performance or excessive overtime. This is common with professional and managerial jobs, as was illustrated in the recruiter example above. Professional jobs are usually only evaluated in terms of the motivational approach to job design, but often they can be greatly improved by mechanistic design principles. Finally, if workload in an area temporarily rises without a correspond- ing increase in staffing levels, the mechanistic approach may be applied to the jobs to enhance efficiency.

Most managerial, professional, and skilled jobs are fairly motivational by their nature. Factory, service, and low-skilled jobs tend naturally not to be motivational. The latter clearly represent the most obvious examples of needed applications of the motivational approach. But there are many jobs in every occupational group, and aspects of almost every job, where motivational features are low. Application of motivational job-design is often limited only by the creativity of the designer.

Jobs involving the operation of complex machinery (e.g., aircraft, construction, and factory control rooms) are primary applications of the perceptual / motor approach. Likewise, many product- inspection and equipment-monitoring jobs can tax attention and concentration capabilities of workers. But jobs in many other occupations may also impose excessive attention and concentration require- ments. For example, some managerial, administrative, professional, and sales jobs can be excessively demanding on the information-processing capabilities of workers, thus causing errors and stress. And nearly all jobs have periods of overload. Perceptual / motor design principles can often be applied to reduce these demands of jobs.

Traditional heavy industries (e.g., coal, steel, oil, construction, and forestry) represent the most obvious applications of the biological approach. Similarly, this approach also applies to many jobs that are common to most industries (e.g., production, maintenance) because there is some physical demands component. Biological design principles can be applied to physically demanding jobs so that women can better perform them (e.g., lighter tools with smaller hand grips). But there may also be applications to less physically demanding jobs. For example, seating, size differences, and posture are important to consider in the design of many office jobs, especially those with computer terminals. This approach can apply to many light-assembly positions that require excessive wrist movements that can eventually lead to the wrist ailment carpal tunnel syndrome. It should be kept in mind, however, that jobs designed with too little physical activity (i.e., movement restricted due to single position or workstation) should be avoided. Likewise, jobs that require excessive travel should be avoided because they can lead to poor eating and sleeping patterns.

Procedures to Follow

There are at least several general guiding philosophies that are helpful when designing or redesigning jobs:

1. As noted previously, designs are not fixed, unalterable, or dictated by the technology. There is at least some discretion in the design of all jobs and substantial discretion in most jobs.

2. There is no single best design for a given job, there are simply better and worse designs depending on one’s job-design perspective.

3. Job design is iterative and evolutionary. It should continue to change and improve over time.

4. When possible, participation of the workers affected generally improves the quality of the resulting design and acceptance of suggested changes.

5. Related to number 4, the process aspects of the project are very important to success. That is, how the project is conducted is important in terms of involvement of all the parties of interest, consideration of alternative motivations, awareness of territorial boundaries, and so on.

As noted previously, surveys of industrial job designers have consistently indicated that the mech- anistic approach represents the dominant theme of job design (Davis et al. 1955; Taylor 1979). Other approaches to job design, such as the motivational approach, have not been given as much explicit consideration. This is not surprising because the surveys only included job designers trained in engineering-related disciplines, such as industrial engineers and systems analysts. It is not necessarily certain that other specialists or line managers would adopt the same philosophies. Nevertheless, there is evidence that even fairly naive job designers (i.e., college students taking management classes) also seem to adopt the mechanistic approach in job-design simulations. That is, their strategies for grouping tasks were primarily similarity of functions or activities, and also similarity of skills, edu- cation, difficulty, equipment, procedures, or location (Campion and Stevens 1989). Even though the mechanistic approach may be the most natural and intuitive, this research has also revealed that people can be trained to apply all four of the approaches to job design.

Procedures for the Initial Design of Jobs or Teams

In consideration of process aspects of conducting a design project, Davis and Wacker (1982) have suggested a strategy consisting of four steps:

1. Form a steering committee. The steering committee usually consists of a group of high-level executives that have a direct stake in the new jobs. The purpose of this committee is fourfold:

(a) to bring into focus the objective of the project, (b) to provide resources and support for the project, (c) to help gain the cooperation of all the parties affected by the project, and (d) to oversee and guide the project.

2. Form a design task force. The task force may include engineers, managers, job-design experts, architects, specialists, and others with knowledge or responsibility relevant to the project. The purpose of the task force is to gather data, generate and evaluate design alternatives, and help implement recommended designs.

3. Develop a philosophy statement. The first goal of the task force is to develop a philosophy statement to guide the many decisions that will be involved in the project. The philosophy statement is developed with considerable input from the steering committee and may include such factors as the purposes of the project, the strategic goals of the organization, assumptions about workers and the nature of work, process considerations, and so on.

4. Proceed in an evolutionary manner. The essential point here is that jobs should not be over- specified. With considerable input from eventual jobholders, the designs of the jobs will con- tinue to change and improve over time.

Procedures for Redesigning Existing Jobs or Teams

According to Davis and Wacker (1982), the process of redesigning existing jobs is much the same as that of designing original jobs with two additions. First, the existing job incumbents must be involved. Second, more attention needs to be given to implementation issues. Most importantly, those involved in the implementation must feel ownership of the change. They should believe that the redesign represents their own interests and efforts. This is important not only so that they will be emotionally committed to the change and willing to put in the effort to make it happen, but also so that they will understand the details of the redesign so as to reduce inherent uncertainty.

Along with steps related to the process issues discussed above and in the previous subsection, a redesign project would also include the following five steps:

1. Measure the design of the existing job or team. A questionnaire methodology may be used as well as other analysis tools such as job analysis, time and motion study, and variance analysis. The goal is to gain a measure of the job as it currently exists.

2. Diagnose potential job- and team-design problems. Based partly on the measures collected in step 1, the job is analyzed for potential problems. The job / team-design task force and employee involvement are particularly important at this step. Focused group meetings are often a useful vehicle for identifying and evaluating potential problems.

3. Determine job- and team-design changes. These changes will be guided by the goals of the project, the problems identified in step 3, and one or more of the theoretical approaches to job and team design. Often several potential changes are generated and evaluated. Evaluation of alternative changes may consist of a consideration of the costs and benefits identified in pre- vious research (see Table 1) and the opinions of engineers, managers, and employees. This may be the point when trade-offs become the most apparent.

4. Make the job- and team-design changes. Implementation plans should be developed in detail along with back-up plans in case there are a few difficulties with the new design. Communi- cation and training are keys to successful implementation. Consideration might also be given to pilot testing the changes before widespread implementation is undertaken.

5. Conduct a follow-up evaluation of the new design. Evaluating the new design after implemen- tation is probably the most neglected component of the process in most applications. Part of the evaluation might include the collection of job and team-design measurements on the re- designed job or team using the same instruments as in step 1. Evaluation may also be conducted on the outcomes from the redesign, such as employee satisfaction, error rates, and training times (e.g., Table 1). And it should be noted that some of the effects of job and team design are not always easy to demonstrate. Scientifically valid evaluations require experimental re- search strategies with control groups. Such studies may not always be possible in ongoing organizations, but often quasiexperimental and other field research designs are possible (Cook and Campbell 1979). Finally, the need for iterations and fine adjustments is identified through the follow-up evaluation.

Methods for Combining Tasks

In many cases, designing jobs or teams is largely a function of combining tasks. Generally speaking, most writing on job design has focused on espousing overall design philosophies or on identifying those dimensions of jobs (once the jobs exist) that relate to important outcomes, but little research has focused on how tasks should be combined to form jobs in the first place. Some guidance can be

gained by extrapolating from the specific design recommendations in Table 2. For example, variety in the motivational approach can be increased by simply combining different tasks into the same job.

Conversely, specialization from the mechanistic approach can be increased by including only very similar tasks in the same job. It is also possible when designing jobs to first generate alternative combinations of tasks, then evaluate them using the design approaches in Table 2.

A small amount of research within the motivational approach has focused explicitly on predicting the relationships between combinations of tasks and the design of resulting jobs (Wong 1989; Wong and Campion 1991). This research suggests that the motivational quality of a job is a function of three task-level variables.

1. Task design. The higher the motivational quality of the individual tasks, the higher the moti- vational quality of the job. Table 2 can be used to evaluate the individual tasks, then motiva- tional scores for the individual tasks can be summed together. Summing is recommended rather than averaging because it includes a consideration of the number of tasks (Globerson and Crossman 1976). That is, both the motivational quality of the tasks and the number of tasks are important in determining the motivational quality of a job.

2. Task interdependence. Interdependence among the tasks has been shown to have an inverted- U relationship with the motivational quality of a job. That is, task interdependence is positively related to motivational value up to some moderate point; beyond that point, increasing inter- dependence leads to lower motivational value. Thus, when tasks are being combined to form motivational jobs, the total amount of interdependence among the tasks should be kept at a moderate level. Both complete independence among the tasks and excessively high interde- pendence should be avoided. Table 5 contains the dimensions of task interdependence and provides a questionnaire that can be used to measure interdependence. Table 5 can be used to judge the interdependence of each pair of tasks being evaluated for inclusion into a particular job.

3. Task similarity. Some degree of similarity among tasks may be the oldest rule of job-design (as discussed previously) and seems to have little influence on the motivational quality of the job. But beyond a moderate level, it tends to decrease the motivational value. Thus, when motivational jobs are being designed, high levels of similarity should be avoided. Similarity at the task pair level can be judged in much the same manner as interdependence by using a subset of the dimensions in Table 5 (see the note).

Davis and Wacker (1982 1987) have provided a list of criteria for grouping tasks into jobs. Part of their list is reproduced below. There are two points to notice. First, the list represents a collection of criteria from both the motivational approach to job-design (e.g., 1, 5, 9) as well as the mechanistic approach (e.g., 2, 8). Second, many of the recommendations could be applied to designing work for teams, as well as individual jobs.

1. Each set of tasks is a meaningful unit of the organization.

2. Task sets are separated by stable buffer areas.

3. Each task set has definite, identifiable inputs and outputs.

4. Each task set has associated with it definite criteria for performance evaluation.

5. Timely feedback about output states and feedforward about input states are available.

6. Each task set has resources to measure and control variances that occur within its area of responsibility.

7. Tasks are grouped around mutual cause–effect relationships.

8. Tasks are grouped around common skills, knowledge, or data bases.

9. Task groups incorporate opportunities for skill acquisition relevant to career advancement.

Individual Differences Among Workers

A common observation made by engineers and managers is that not all employees respond the same way to the same job. Some people on a given job have high satisfaction, while others on the very same job have low satisfaction. Some people seem to like all jobs, while others dislike every job. Clearly, there are individual differences in how people respond to their work.

There has been a considerable amount of research looking at individual differences in reaction to the motivational approach to job design. It has been found that some people respond more positively (e.g., are more satisfied) than others to highly motivational work. These differences were initially considered to be reflections of underlying work ethic (Hulin and Blood 1968), but later were viewed more generally as differences in needs for personal growth and development (Hackman and Oldham 1980).

Using the broader notion of preferences / tolerances for types of work, the consideration of indi- vidual differences has been expanded to all four approaches to job design (Campion 1988; Campion and McClelland 1991). Table 6 provides a set of rating scales that can be used with job incumbents to determine their preferences / tolerances. These scales can be administered in the same manner as the questionnaire measures of job design discussed previously.

Although a consideration of employee differences is strongly encouraged, in many situations there are limits to which such differences can be accommodated. As examples, many jobs have to be designed for groups of people that may differ in their preferences / tolerances, often jobs need to be designed without knowledge of the future workers, and the workers on a job may change over time. Fortunately, even though the cumulative evidence is that individual differences moderate reactions to the motivational approach (Loher et al. 1985) the differences are of degree, not direction. In other words, some people respond more positively than others to motivational work, but very few respond negatively. It is likely that this also applies to the other approaches to job design.

Some Basic Decisions

Hackman and Oldham (1980) have provided five strategic choices that relate to implementing job redesign. They note that little research exists indicating the exact consequences of each choice and that correct choices may differ by organization. The basic decisions are given below:

1. Individual vs. group designs for work. A key initial decision is to either enrich individual jobs or create self-managing work teams. This also includes consideration of whether any redesign should be undertaken and its likelihood of success.

2. Theory-based vs. intuitive changes. This choice was basically defined as the motivational (theory) approach vs. no particular (atheoretical) approach. In the present chapter, this choice may be better framed as choosing among the four approaches to job design. However, as argued earlier, consideration of only one approach may lead to some costs or additional benefits being ignored.

3. Tailored vs. broadside installation. The choice here is between tailoring the changes to the individual employee or making the changes for all employees in a given job.

4. Participative vs. top-down change processes. The most common orientation, and that of this chapter, is that participative is best. However, there are costs to participation, including the

time commitment involved and the fact that incumbents may lack needed broader knowledge of the business.

5. Consultation vs. collaboration with stakeholders. The effects of job-design changes often ex- tend far beyond the individual incumbent and department. For example, the output from the job may be an input to another job elsewhere in the organization, and the presence of a union always constitutes another interested party. Depending on many considerations, participation of stakeholders may range from no involvement to consultation to full collaboration.

Overcoming Resistance to Change

Resistance to change can be a problem in any project involving major change. Failure rates of implementations demonstrate a need to give more attention to the human aspects of change projects. It has been estimated that between 50% and 75% of newly implemented manufacturing technologies in the United States have failed, with a disregard for human and organizational issues considered to be a bigger cause of failure than technical problems (Majchrzak 1988; Turnage 1990). The number one obstacle to implementation was considered to be resistance to change (Hyer 1984).

Guidelines for reducing resistance to change include the following (Gallagher and Knight 1986; Majchrzak 1988; Turnage 1990):

1. Involve workers in planning the change. Workers should be informed in advance of changes and involved in the process of diagnosing problems and developing solutions because resistance is reduced when workers participate and feel the project is their own.

2. Top management should visibly support the change. When workers feel managers are not committed, they are less likely to take a project seriously.

3. Create change that is consistent with workers’ needs and existing values. Resistance is less if change is seen to reduce burdens, offer interesting experience, and not threaten workers’ au- tonomy or security. Workers need to see advantages to them of their involvement in the change.

4. Create an environment of open, supportive communication. If participants experience support and trust, there will be less resistance. Misunderstandings and conflicts should be expected as natural to the innovation process. Adequate provision should be made for clarification and communication.

5. Allow for flexibility. Resistance is reduced if a project is open to revision and reconsideration based on experience.