Work design theories draw heavily from motivational theories in organizational psychology.

The thinking underpinning contemporary approaches to work design can be traced back to

views that emerged in the United Kingdom around the time of the Industrial Revolution

(Parker, Wall & Corderly 2001). Adam Smith promoted the division of labour, or the

breaking down of complex jobs into simpler jobs, as a way of enhancing performance. With

respect to the design of individual jobs, the first major theory was that of Herzberg and

colleagues (Parker et al. 2001). Their Two-factor Theory was superseded by Hackman and

Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (JCM) (1976). This identifies five ‘core job

characteristics’: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback.

 

 

The five core job characteristics are specified as determinants of three ‘critical psychological

states’: skill variety, task identity and task significance together contributing to ‘experienced

 

meaningfulness’; autonomy to ‘experienced responsibility’; and feedback to ‘knowledge of

results. In turn, the critical psychological states are cast collectively as promoting work

satisfaction, internal work motivation, performance and reduced absence and employee

turnover. The model assumes that autonomy and feedback are more important than the other

work characteristics. It was hypothesized that there are three moderators of the job

characteristics – critical psychological states outcomes relationship. The most commonly

examined moderator has been growth need strength (GNS). It was suggested that individuals

high in GNS (i.e. desire for challenge and personal development) will respond positively to

enriched jobs than others. The two other moderators (individual knowledge and skill and

context satisfaction) have been much less frequently studied.

More than 200 studies conducted on job characteristics that are determinants of attitudinal and

behavioral outcomes are the result of more than two decades of empirical research inspired by

the JCM (Ambrose and Kulik 1999). Based on these researches, two main conclusions are

proposed by Parker et al. (2001). First, the collective effects of the core job characteristics on

affective responses (satisfaction and motivation) have been largely supported, but those for

behavior (i.e. work performance, turnover and absence) less consistently. Second, the more

particular features of the model remain unproven. For example, the specified links between

the job characteristics and the critical psychological states have not been confirmed.

One theoretical development that is currently popular is the concept of psychological

empowerment). This approach does not focus on the objective features of the job but focuses

on whether an individual perceives themselves as empowered. The state of psychological

empowerment is defined as motivational state involving an assessment of meaning, impact,

competence and choice (self-determination). These cognitive motivational assessments

overlap considerably with the critical psychological states in the Job Characteristics Model.

Meaning is similar to meaningfulness; impact is similar to knowledge of respons and selfdetermination

is similar to experienced responsibility. Evidence suggests that work

characteristics result in psychological empowerment, which results in affective outcomes such

as work satisfaction (Liden, Wayne & Sparrowe 2000). However, where the psychological

empowerment approach is distinct form the JCM is that it recognizes that the psychological

states of empowerment can arise from influences over and above work characteristics, such as

peer helping and supportive customer relationships (Parker et al. 2001).

 

The JCM thinking remains the most common approach to work design research today. A

challenge to the job characteristics approach came in the form of the social informationprocessing

perspective (Parker et al. 2001). Noting that employees’ perceptions of their work

would be the most direct determinants of their attitudes and behavior, this approach suggested

that perceptions arise much from social factors as from objective work characteristics, making

how people see their work the focus rather than the design of work itself. Research has

supported the idea that social influences affect perceptions of jobs, but suggests that these

effects are weaker than those of objective job features (Parker et al. 2001).