JOB AND TEAM DESIGN:JOB DESIGN

JOB DESIGN

This chapter is based on an interdisciplinary perspective on job design. That is, several approaches to job design are considered, regardless of the scientific disciplines from which they came. Interdis- ciplinary research on job design has shown that several different approaches to job design exist; that each is oriented toward a particular subset of outcomes for organizations and employees; that each has costs as well as benefits; and that trade-offs are required when designing jobs in most practical situations (Campion 1988, 1989; Campion and Berger 1990; Campion and McClelland 1991, 1993; Campion and Thayer 1985). The four major approaches to job design are reviewed below in terms of their historical development, design recommendations, and benefits and costs. Table 1 summarizes the approaches, while Table 2 provides detail on specific recommendations.

Mechanistic Job Design

Historical Background

The historical roots of job design can be traced back to the concept of the division of labor, which was very important to early thinking on the economies of manufacturing (Babbage 1835; Smith 1981). The division of labor led to job designs characterized by specialization and simplification. Jobs designed in this fashion had many advantages, including reduced learning time, reduced time

Exercise opportunities: During the day, there are enough for changing tasks or tools, increased proficiency from the repetition of the same tasks, and the development of special-purpose tools and equipment.

A very influential person for this early perspective on job design was Frederick Taylor (Taylor 1911; Hammond 1971), who expounded the principles of scientific management, which encouraged the study of jobs to determine the ‘‘one best way’’ to perform each task. Movements of skilled workers were studied using a stopwatch and simple analysis. The best and quickest methods and tools were selected, and all workers were trained to perform the job in the same manner. Standards were developed, and incentive pay was tied to the standard performance levels. Gilbreth was also a key founder of this job-design approach (Gilbreth 1911). Through the use of time and motion study, he tried to eliminate wasted movements in work by the appropriate design of equipment and place- ment of tools and materials.

Surveys of industrial job designers indicate that this mechanistic approach to job design, char- acterized by specialization, simplification, and time study, was the prevailing practice throughout the last century (Davis et al. 1955; Davis and Valfer 1965). These characteristics are also the primary focus of many modern-day writers on job-design (Barnes 1980; Niebel 1988; Mundel 1985; also see Chapter 38). The discipline base is indicated as ‘‘classic’’ industrial engineering in Table 1. Modern- day industrial engineers may practice a variety of approaches to job design, however.

Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a brief list of statements that describe the essential recommendations of the mech- anistic approach. In essence, jobs should be studied to determine the most efficient work methods and techniques. The total work in an area (e.g., department) should be broken down into highly specialized jobs that are assigned to different employees. The tasks should be simplified so that skill requirements are minimized. There should also be repetition in order to gain improvement from practice. Idle time should be minimized. Finally, activities should be automated or assisted by au- tomation to the extent possible and economically feasible.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The goal of this approach is to maximize efficiency, in terms of both productivity and the utilization of human resources. Table 1 summarizes some of the human resource advantages and disadvantages that have been observed in previous research. Jobs designed according to the mechanistic approach are easier and less expensive to staff. Training times are reduced. Compensation requirements may be less because skill and responsibility are reduced. And because mental demands are less, errors may be less common.

The mechanistic approach also has disadvantages. Too much of the mechanistic approach may result in jobs that are so simple and routine that employees experience less job satisfaction and motivation. Overly mechanistic work can lead to health problems from the physical wear that can result from highly repetitive and machine-paced work.

Motivational Job Design

Historical Background

Encouraged by the human relations movement of the 1930s (Mayo 1933; Hoppock 1935), people began to point out the unintended drawbacks of the overapplication of the mechanistic design phi- losophy in terms of worker attitudes and health (Argyris 1964; Blauner 1964; Likert 1961). Overly specialized and simplified jobs were found to lead to dissatisfaction (Caplan et al. 1975; Karasek 1979; Kornhauser 1965; Shepard 1970) and to adverse physiological consequences for workers (Fran- kenhaeuser 1977; Johansson et al. 1978). Jobs on assembly lines and other machine-paced work were especially troublesome in this regard (Salvendy and Smith 1981; Walker and Guest 1952). These trends led to an increasing awareness of the psychological needs of employees.

The first efforts to enhance the meaningfulness of jobs simply involved the exact opposite of specialization. It was recommended that tasks be added to jobs, either at the same level of respon- sibility (i.e., job enlargement) or at a higher level (i.e., job enrichment) (Ford 1969; Herzberg 1966). This job-design trend expanded into a pursuit of identifying and validating the characteristics of jobs that make them motivating and satisfying (Griffin 1982; Hackman and Lawler 1971; Hackman and Oldham 1980; Turner and Lawrence 1965). This approach to job design considers the psychological theories of work motivation (Mitchell 1976; Steers and Mowday 1977; Vroom 1964), thus this ‘‘motivational’’ approach to job design draws primarily from organizational psychology as a discipline base.

A related trend following later in time but somewhat comparable in content is the sociotechnical approach (Cherns 1976; Emory and Trist 1960; Rousseau 1977). It focuses not only on the work, but also on the technology itself. Interest is less on the job per se and more on roles and systems. The goal, and key concept, is the joint optimization of both the social and technical systems. Although

this approach differs somewhat in that it also gives consideration to the technical system, it is similar in that it draws on the same psychological job characteristics that affect satisfaction and motivation.

Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a list of statements that describe the recommendations from the motivational ap- proach. It suggests that jobs should allow the worker some autonomy to make decisions about how and when tasks are to be done. The worker should feel that the work is important to the overall mission of the organization or department. This is often done by allowing the worker to perform a larger unit of work or to perform an entire piece of work from beginning to end. Feedback on job performance should be given to the worker from the task itself, as well as from the supervisor and others. The worker should be able to use a variety of skills and have opportunities to learn new skills and personally grow on the job. Aside from these characteristics that make jobs meaningful from a task-oriented perspective, this approach also considers the social or people-interaction aspects of the job. That is, jobs should have opportunities for participation, communication, and recognition. Finally, other human resource systems should contribute to the motivating atmosphere, such as adequate pay, promotion, and job-security systems.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The goal of this approach is to enhance the psychological meaningfulness of the jobs, thus influencing a variety of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Table 1 summarizes some of the human resource benefits and costs from previous research. Jobs designed according to the motivational approach have more satisfied, motivated, and involved employees. Furthermore, job performance may be higher and absenteeism lower. Customer service may even be improved, in part because employees may take more pride in the work, and in part because employees can catch their own errors by performing a larger part of the work.

In terms of disadvantages, jobs that are too high on the motivational approach may have longer training times and be more difficult and expensive to staff because of their greater skill and ability requirements. Higher skill and responsibility may in turn require higher compensation. Overly mo- tivating jobs may be so stimulating that workers become predisposed to mental overload, fatigue, errors, and occupational stress.

Perceptual / Motor Job Design

Historical Background

This approach draws on a scientific discipline that goes by many names, including human factors, human factors engineering, human engineering, man–machine systems engineering, and engineering psychology. As a field, it developed from a number of other disciplines, primarily experimental psychology, but also industrial engineering (Meister 1971; Meister and Rabideau 1965). Within ex- perimental psychology, job-design recommendations draw heavily from knowledge of human skilled performance (Welford 1976) and the analysis of humans as information processors (Fogel 1976). The main concern of this approach is with the efficient and safe utilization of humans in human–machine systems, with emphasis on the selection, design, and arrangement of system components so as to take account of both people’s capabilities and limitations (Pearson 1971). It is more concerned with equipment than is the motivational approach and more concerned with people’s abilities than is the mechanistic approach.

The perceptual / motor approach received public attention through the Three Mile Island incident, after which it was concluded that the control room-operator job in the nuclear power plant may have created too many demands on the operator in an emergency situation, thus creating a predisposition to errors of judgment (Campion and Thayer 1987). Federal government regulations issued since that time require that nuclear power plants consider the ‘‘human factors’’ in their design (NRC 1981). The primary emphasis suggested by the title of these regulations is on perceptual and motor abilities of people. This approach is the most prolific with respect to recommendations for proper job design, with the availability of many handbooks giving specific advice for all types of equipment, facilities, and layouts (Salvendy 1987; Sanders and McCormick 1987; Van Cott and Kinkade 1972; Woodson 1981).

Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a list of statements describing some of the most important recommendations of the perceptual / motor approach. They refer either to equipment and environments on the one hand or information processing requirements on the other. Their thrust is to take into consideration the mental capabilities and limitations of people, such that the attention and concentration requirements of the job do not exceed the abilities of the least-capable potential worker. The focus is on the limits of the least-capable worker because this approach is concerned with the effectiveness of the total system, which is no better than its weakest link. Jobs should be designed to limit the amount of information workers must pay attention to, remember, and think about. Lighting levels should be appropriate, displays and controls should be logical and clear, workplaces should be well laid out and safe, and equipment should be easy to use (i.e., user friendly).

Advantages and Disadvantages

The goals of this approach are to enhance the reliability and safety of the system and to gain positive user reactions. Table 1 summarizes some of the human resource advantages and disadvantages found in previous research. Jobs designed according to the perceptual / motor approach have lower likeli- hoods of errors and accidents. Employees may be less stressed and mentally fatigued because of the reduced mental demands of the job. Like the mechanistic approach, it reduces the mental ability requirements of the job. Thus, it may also enhance some human resource efficiencies, such as reduced training times and staffing difficulties.

On the other hand, costs to the perceptual / motor approach may result if it is excessively applied. In particular, less satisfaction, less motivation, and more boredom may result because the jobs provide inadequate mental stimulation. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the least-capable potential workerplaces the limits on the mental requirements of the job.

Biological Job Design

Historical Background

This approach and the perceptual / motor approach share a joint concern for proper person–machine fit. The primary difference is that this approach is more oriented toward biological considerations of job design and stems from such disciplines as work physiology (Astrand and Rodahl 1977), bio- mechanics (i.e., the study of body movements) (Tichaeur 1978), and anthropometry (i.e., the study of body sizes) (Hertzberg 1972). Like the perceptual / motor approach, the biological approach is concerned with the design of equipment and workplaces as well as the design of tasks (Grandjean 1980).

Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a list of important recommendations from the biological approach. This approach tries to design jobs to reduce physical demands, and especially to avoid exceeding people’s physical capabilities and limitations. Jobs should not have excessive strength and lifting requirements, and again the capabilities of the least-physically able potential worker set the maximum level. Chairs should be designed so that good postural support is provided. Excessive wrist movement should be reduced by redesigning tasks and equipment. Noise, temperature, and atmosphere should be controlled within reasonable limits. Proper work / rest schedules should be provided so that employees can recuperate from the physical demands of the job.

Advantages and Disadvantages

The goals of this approach are to maintain the comfort and physical well being of the employees. Table 1 summarizes some of the human resource advantages and disadvantages observed in the research. Jobs designed according to the biological approach require less physical effort, result in less fatigue, and create fewer injuries and aches and pains than jobs low on this approach. Occupa- tional injuries and illnesses, such as lower back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, are fewer on well- designed jobs. There may even be lower absenteeism and higher job satisfaction on jobs that are not physically arduous.

A direct cost of this approach may be the expense of changes in equipment or job environments needed to implement the recommendations. At the extreme, there may be other costs. For example, it is possible to design jobs with so few physical demands that the workers become drowsy or lethargic, thus reducing their performance or encouraging them to leave their workplace. Clearly, extremes of physical activity and inactivity should be avoided, and there may even be an optimal level of physical activity for various employee groups (e.g., male, female, young, old).

2.5. Conflicts and Trade-offs among Approaches

Although one should strive to construct jobs that are well designed on all the approaches, it is clear that there are some direct conflicts in design philosophies. As Table 1 illustrates, the benefits of some approaches are the costs of others. No one approach can satisfy all outcomes. As noted above, the greatest potential conflicts are between the motivational approach on the one hand and the mechanistic and perceptual / motor approaches on the other. They produce nearly opposite outcomes. The mech- anistic and perceptual / motor approaches recommend designing jobs that are simple, easy to learn, safe, and reliable, with minimal mental demands on workers. The motivational approach encourages more complicated, challenging, and stimulating jobs, with greater mental demands.

Because of these conflicts, trade-offs and compromises may be necessary in many practical sit- uations. The major trade-offs will be in terms of the mental demands of jobs created by the alternative design strategies. Making the job more mentally demanding increases the likelihood of achieving the workers’ goals of satisfaction and motivation. On the other hand, making the job less mentally demanding increases the chances of reaching the organization’s goals of reduced training and staffing costs and errors. Which trade-offs will be made depends on which types of outcomes one wants to maximize. In most situations, probably a compromise strategy may be optimal.

Trade-offs may not be needed in all situations, however. Jobs can often be improved on one approach while still maintaining their quality on other approaches. For example, in a recent redesign study, the motivational approach was applied to a group of clerical jobs to improve employee satis- faction and customer service (Campion and McClelland 1991). The expected benefits occurred along with some expected costs (e.g., increased training and compensation requirements), but not all po- tential costs occurred (e.g., efficiency did not decrease).

One strategy for minimizing trade-offs is to avoid design decisions that influence the mental demands of jobs. An example of this strategy is to enhance motivational design by focusing on the social aspects (e.g., social interaction, communication, participation, recognition, feedback, etc.). These design features can be increased without incurring the costs of increased mental demands. Moreover, many of these design features are under the direct control of those who manage the job.

The independence of the biological approach provides another opportunity to improve design without incurring trade-offs with the other approaches. One can reduce physical demands without influencing the mental demands of a job. Of course, the cost of equipment may need to be considered.

Finally, the adverse effects of trade-offs can often be reduced by avoiding designs that are ex- tremely high or low on any of the approaches. Alternatively, one might require minimally acceptable levels on each approach. Knowing all the approaches to job design and their corresponding outcomes will help one make more intelligent job-design decisions and avoid unanticipated consequences.