CHAPTER 6

FINDINGS: JOB DESIGN, INDIVIDUAL MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION

Along with chapter 5 this will be one of the crucial chapters in this investigation. This study essentially looks at the organization from two points of view: one, from the performance of individual work unit and the other, from the individuals or employees as participants doing their jobs in organization. This chapter relates to the second aspect, that is, work assignment, work design, work motivation and job satisfaction of employees or individuals. This, by itself, is a very important aspect of management in NIA. Even without studying the total organization, many business enterprises will like to know how individual jobs are designed and how individuals perform their job and how individuals are motivated.

This chapter is written on the basis of responses to the Job Design Questionnaire included in this survey.. The Job Design Questionnaire was given to at least two persons, one senior person and one junior person from each work unit. These questionnaires are concerned with various aspects of job assignment, job definition, characteristics of jobs, and also individual motivation and satisfaction as well as social background. In analyzing this questionnaire we take a two-pronged approach: one, by taking individual as a unit of study, we shall analyze 236 observations or individual employee responses from the job design and job culture point of view; and the other, taking the work unit as the main unit of study, we shall integrate findings from the job design analysis with those from the organizational design study, which we attempt in the next chapter. To be comparable, responses from each work unit for the job design questionnaire will have to be added together and averaged out to get the mean response of the individuals in a particular work unit. These unit level results will be studied in the same way we have done in the organizational unit analysis in the previous chapter. But, essentially, the report that we are going to make in this chapter will be primarily concerned with the analysis of individual responses and studying what kind of work culture that emerges in NIA.

Comparison With Other Results

As we wish to know how consistent is this construction of indices by the OAl procedures with the results that could be achieved by the alternative scales such as a scale by factor analysis. As we have done in the organizational design questionnaire, we also factor-analyzed the whole of the job design question items to see whether the resulting factor analysis tallies with the indices that we have constructed and it is found that all the important items included in each of the job design indices also matches with items in the comparable factor scales, again confirming that our instruments constructed on a theoretical basis is coinciding or largely overlapping with the results of the empirically constructed factor analysis scales.

92

In analyzing the questionnaire, as we have done in the case of the organizational design indices, the OAI procedure for construction of Job Design indices is followed. Job design indices were already formulated, constructed and tested by the OAI researchers on a similar questionnaire, administered to a number of service-type state agencies in the United States.

Table 6.1 shows the comparison of the results of job the design indices with those of the indices used in the previous researches.

COMPARISON OF RESWITH THOSE OF

TABLE 6.1 ULTS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES PREVIOUS RESEARCHES

NAME OF ORGANIZATION

NIA CLERICAL CLAIMS

PROCESSING

JOB PLACEMENT

EMPCOU

LOYNSE

MENT LLING

NUMBER OF OBS. 236 254 254 75

M SD SD M SD ~.

I ... SD

Task DifficuJ ty 2.02 0.53 1.98 0.69 2.24 0.65 2.78 0.71

Task Variability 3.70 0.90 2.04 0.63 2.27 0.69 2.75 0.74

Job Standardization 3.55 0.58 3.39 0.88 3.35 0.81 2.91 0.92

Job Authority 3.97' 0.73 2.77 1.21 3.21 1.04 3.63 0.91

Job Pressure 2.99 0.48 3.36 0.64 3.44 0.75 3.21 0.57

Job Feedback 2.95' 0.62 2.30 0.74 2.47 0.63 2.39 0.62

Expectation of Rewards 3.15· 0.99 2.38 0.96 2.69 1.10 2.29 0.89

1~"Of 2.89

~4.38

3.40 0.55 3.40

0.93 2.90 0.90 2.86 0.82

tivation 0.63 4.38 0.60 4.25 0.65

Job Satisfaction 0.80 3.29 0.81 3.31 0.71

M SD

Means Standard Deviations

Three oorganizations we

rganizations that we have have used when we

included icompared our

n this comparesults

rison with

are the those

sof

ame the

organizational design indices. They are, namely, the Clerical Claims Processing Section which include mostly clerical workers, the Job Replacement Section which includes both professional and semi professional employees and also clerical employees, the Employee Counselling Section which includes mostly educated and more qualified professional employees. Not all job design indices proposed in the OAl Manual had been constructed or used in the previous researches. We included in the table only those indices constructed and used in both researches in a comparable manner. Altogether

93

nine scales are found to be comparable between results of the two sets of the researches, ours and the previous ones. The table shows a comparison of results obtained by these three agencies and by the NIA with regard to the respective indices. It should be noted that all these indices shown are constructed on the same basis. Generally a one to five point scale questions are used and each of the scores used are based on the average scores of the individuals answering a group of items.

When we look at the averages of the comparable indices in two sets of research studies they are found to be quite similar. However, among these items the results of the indices relating to job authority, job feedback and expectation of rewards from our NIA study stand out, contrasting sharply with the results of similar indices from the previous researches. The average of the job authority in NIA is 3.97 but all the previous research resul ts do not reach this level. Likewise, the average of the job feedback index is 2.7 which is higher than any of the averages of the three organizations included here. Also the expectation of reward is another scale scoring an average distinctly higher than the one obtained by the three organizations in the past. The other items are more or less comparable and we cannot really distinguish between the two sets of results. However, the fact that the Job Authority, the Job Feedback and the Expectation of Rewards are the highest scores in the National Irrigation Administration sample underlines the importance of authority relationship, communication and incentive processes. These, again, are consistent with what we have just found out from the results of the organizational design indices, again pointing towards what kind of work culture that we are discerning in this National Irrigation Administration.

Work Culture in NIA as depicted by Basic Statistics

The first finding that we would like to report is the basic statistics of question items included in the Job Design indices for National Irrigation Administration. This particular table is shown as Table 6.2 in this study. In this table, basic statistics such as mean values, standard deviations, coefficient of variations of each question are placed under the titles of respective indices. The average value and other statistics of each index are also separately mentioned. In addition, related indices are again placed under respective groupings conceptually developed earlier in the Methodology chapter. We expect that these results will give us a broad picture of the work culture as it is evolved in the organiza tional uni ts of NIA.

94

TABLE 6.2 BASIC STATISTICS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES AND QUESTION ITEMS

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES

GROUPING/INDICESI QUESTION ITEMS

NUMBER OF

OBS.

MEANS STANDARD DEVIATION

COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION

1. VARIABILITY

1.1 Task Difficulty 236 2.021 0.532 26.33

Q4 Difficulty Knowing Work Correct 3.702 0.899 2428 Q5 Unsure of Work Outcome 4.220 0.685 1625 Q7 Frequency Problem Arises 1.283 0.620 48.34 Q8 Time Spent Solving Problems 2.692 1.256 46.66

1.2 Task Variability 236 2.577 0.490 19.03

Q2 Perform Different Tasks 2.485 1.059 42.63 Q3 Number of Daily Tasks Different 2.374 0.688 29.01 Q6 Frequency of Exceptions 2.355 0.989 42.00 Q14 Frequency follow Different Steps 3.923 1.075 27.41

2. STRUCTURE

2.1 Job Standardization 236 3.549 0.578 16.29

Q16 Number of Written Job Rules 3.021 1.044 34.55 Q17 Details of Job Rules 3.398 1.207 35.53 Q21 Percent Time have SOPs' 2.896 1.295 44.71 Q15 Extent follOwing SOPs' 3.702 0.824 22.27 Q24 aarity of Job Performance Standard 4.372 0.718 16.42 Q25 Extent Job Desc. Specifies Performance 3.868 0.962 24.89

3. AUTONOMY

3.1 Job Authority 236 3.968 0.728 1835

Q22A Decide what Tasks to Perform 4.274 0.876 20.51 Q22B Decide Work Quotas and Standards 4.104 0.865 21.08 Q22C Decide Work Rules and Procedures 3.830 1.021 26.66 Q22D Decide how to handJe Exceptions 3.634 1.047 28.82

3.2 Job Pressure 236 2.992 0.486 16.26

Q18 Heaviness of Work Load 3.351 0.737 22.00 Q20 Control over Work Place 3.637 0.988 27.16 Q19 Work Lead Time 2.733 1.143 41.83 Q27 Difficulty achieving Performance Std. 3.004 0.993 33.06

3.3 Job Accountability 236 4.073 0.623 15.31

Q23 Held accolUltable for Work Decisions 4.038 1.092 27.06 Q29 Held accolUltable for achieving Stds. 4.025 1.178 29.28 Q28 Fairness of Job Appraisal Standards 3.663 1.161 31.70 Q37J Take Credit or Blame for Work Results 3.665 1.130 30.85 Q37E Feel Responsible for Work 4.542 0.751 16.53 Q37 A Don't care if work done right 1.472 1.013 68.86

SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

95

TABLE 6.2 BASIC STATISTICS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES AND QUESTION ITEMS

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES (Cont'd.)

GROUPING/INDICES/ QUESTION ITEMS

NUMBER OF

OBS.

MEANS STANDARD DEVIATION

COEFFICIENT OF

VARIATION

4. JOB FEEDBACK AND CONTROL

4.1 Job Feedback 236 2.955 0.521 17.65

Q9 Feedback from Job 3.504 0.910 25.99 Q10 Frequency of feedback from Peers 2.382 0.890 37.36 Q37H Never get feedback from Co-Workers 2.555 1.126 44.09 Q30 Frequency of feedback from Supervisor 2.436 0.949 38.98 Q26 Degree Supervisor Discuss Performance 2.910 0.861 29.61 Q31 Frequency receive practical suggest.s 2.463 0.986 40.05 Q37C Supervisor often provides feedback 3.548 1.090 30.72

4.2 Feedback from Supervisor 236 2.840 0.680 23.94

Q30 Frequency of feedback from Supervisor 2.436 0.949 38.98 Q26 Degrees Supervisor Discuss Performance 2.910 0.861 29.61 Q31 Frequency receive practical suggest.s 2.463 0.986 40.05 Q37C Supervisor often providl..>S feedback 3.548 1.090 30.72

4.3 Feedback from Peers 236 2.910 0.771 26.49

QI0 Frequency of feedback from Peers 2.382 0.890 37.36 Q37H Never get feedback from Co-Workers 2.555 1.126 44.09

4.4 Expectations of Rewards and Sanctions 236 3.024 0.731 24.16

Q32A Glance of Recognition for Good Job 3.450 1.192 34.56

Q32B Glance of Promotion for Good Work 2.800 1.199 42.82 Q37K Reward for Extra Effort 3.200 1.245 38.91 Q33A Glance of Reprimand for Poor Job 3.603 1.187 32.94 Q33B Glance of Demotion for Poor Job 2.058 1.159 56.31 Q37L Reprimand for Inferior Work 3.068 1.227 39.99

4.5 Expectation of Rewards 236 3.148 0.993 31.54

Q32A Glance of Recognition for Good Job 3.450 1.192 34.56 Q32B Glance of Promotion for Good Work 2.800 1.199 42.82 Q37K Reward for Extra Effort 3.200 1.245 38.91

4.6 Expectation of Sanctions 236 2.899 0.853 29.42

Q33A Glance of Reprimand for Poor Job 3.603 1.187 32.94

Q33B Glance of Demotion for Poor Job 2.058 1.159 56.31

Q37L Reprimand for Inferior Work 3.068 1.227 39.99

96

_..,......

TABLE 6.2 BASIC STATISTICS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES AND QUESTION ITEMS

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES (Cont'd.)

GROUPINGIINDICESI NUMBER MEANS STANDARD COEFFICIENT QUESTION ITEMS OF DEVIATION OF

OBS. VARIATION

5. MODERATION

5.1 Job Expertise

Q55 Years of School Beyond Grade School Q56 Educational Degree Obtained Q13 Length of Job-Entry Training Qll Time In On the Job Training

5.2 Growth Need Strength of Job Incumbent

Q38 Prefer a Job with Creativity Over a Job with better Pay

039 Prefer a Job with Pleasant People Over a Job with Important Decisions

040 Prefer a Job rewarded for Loyalty Over Responsibility

041 Prefer a Job with No Discretion Over one with Finandal Troubles

042 Prefer a Job with UnfriendJy Workers Over Routine Job

Q43 Prefer No-Skill Job Over a Job with Critical Supervisor

Q44 Prefer opportunity to Learn Over Supervisor Respect

045 Prefer a Job with No Challenge Over a Job with Chance of Layoff

046 Prefer a Job with Fringe Benefits Over a Job with Skill Development

047 Prefer a Job with Poor Work Conditions Over a Job with Uttle Freedom

048 Prefer a Job to use Personal Skills Over a Job with Teamwork

049 Prefer Isolated Job Over a Job with No Challenge

6. INTERVENING

6.1 Work Motivation

Q35 Effort put into Work Q36 Attempts to Improve Performance Q37B SeII-Opinion in doing Job Well Q37D Accomplishment felt in doing Job Well Q37G Feeling when Job done Poorly Q37J Feeling Unaffected by how well Job

Done

7. OUTCOME

7.1 Job Satisfaction

Q34A Satisfied with Job Q34B Satisfied with Supervisor Q34C Satisfied with Pay Q34D Satisfied with Co-Workers Q34E Satisfied with Past Career Q34F Satisfied with Career Potential Q37F Often thinking of Quitting Job

236

236

236

236

0.006

4.941 3.974 2.755 2.622

3.159

3.133

2.793

2.163

2.929

2.427

3.026

3387

3288

1.726

2.570

3316

2.991

4.362

4.682 4.559 4316 4.677 4.177

2.260

3.406

4.008 3.720 2.292 4.033 3.230 2.781 2.175

0.527

1.339 0.515 1.214 1.119

0397

1.031

1.102

1.155

0.928

0.824

0.851

1.103

0.851

0.963

0.852

1.261

0.699

0.500

0.557 0.732 0.937 0.695 1.142

1.227

0.650

0.860 0.996 1.108 0.803 1.148 1.129 1.153

7944.5

27.10 12.96 44.07 42.69

12.57

32.92

39.46

53.42

31.69

33.95

28.14

35.55

25.87

55.83

33.14

38.03

2337

11.46

11.91 16.07 21.71 14.85 2733

54.29

19.10

21.46 26.79 48.36 19.91 35.56 40.60 53.01

97

In the previous analysis of the work unit in Chapter 5, we have relegated the scores of individual question items to the Appendix and we show in the table only the scores of the individual indices. However, in this case we are going to present the scores of each job design indices as well as the scores of the question items included in each index. The reason is that from the point of view of management, exploring work motivation, understanding the work organization, and knowing individual reactions to the management policies will help unearth the whole web of work culture in the NIA. Not only the indices but also the question items themselves that make up the indices or how individuals respond to each item will be of much interest to management and we, therefore, are going to present in this table the average scores of question items as well.

First, let us look at the job standardization in the index. There we find that among the items in the job standardization index the percentage of time the standard operating procedures are available is 2.8, or 56 per cent, which is the lowest score among all the questions items in this index, and on the other hand, one finds that clarity of job performance standard has a rather high average. This will indicate that the individuals' work roles are not strictly ruled by the standard operating procedures and yet the job performance standards, where applicable, are clearly defined. This again points out how well organized or specified jobs are in the NIA. Credit goes to the management as far as these responses are concerned as they indicate the degree of latitude given to workers in what they do and yet clear performance standards which define what is expected of workers also are clearly laid down. The next item is the job authority index in which two questions, 'decide what tasks to perform' and 'decide work quota and standard' score very high averages, whereas questions such as 'decide work rules and procedures' and 'decide how to handle exceptions' have low scores. This information suggests that the individuals are allowed to decide the particular tasks that they wish to give priority and also they have a say on the quotas and standards, whereas work procedures and exceptions have to come from the management or the supervisors. This, again, is what could be expected in enlightened work situations but if the management is thinking about introducing more participative management, not only deciding the tasks and the work quota but also setting work rules and exceptions may also be delegated to the workE~rs as a group or a team.

In the case of the job pressure index, all items show more or less in the same level of aVE~rages except the question relating to the work lead time which has a very low score. That indicates probably the need for organizing the work so that there will be enough time ahead for the workers to know what is expected of them. As regards the job accountability, all the job accountable items such as 'feel responsible for work' and 'held accountable for work decisions,' 'held accountable for achieving standards' have high scores, indicating that work accountability is quite highly achieved in this organization as far as the responses indicate. It is also interesting to note that the one question which asks a more negative attitudes of work, 'Do not care whether the work is done right or wrong,' has a very low score. Assuming that these responses reflect truly what actually is happening in the organization work units the job accountability

98

as depicted is very highly satisfactory. When we come to the job feedback there is a different story to tell. All the main scores for the job feedback items are rather low compared with all items in all other indices. Remembering that each items has five responses and the maximum is five, the minimum score being one, the feedback from the peers, co-workers, supervisors and the degree by which the supervisor discusses performance, the frequency with which practical suggestions are received all are low scoring items. On the average, about the score of 2.5, except the item 'supervisor often provides feedback,' indicates the problem of feedback or the low feedback atmosphere in the NIA as a whole. It is also to note that, in all these question items, the coefficient of variation is fairly high, indicating that there can be high differences among individuals as well as, possibly, between various work units or between various regions regarding these scores.

Regarding the expectations of reward and sanctions, another interesting story emerges. The item on the Expectation of Rewards and Sanctions is satisfactorily scored by respondents, the average being 3.0 and above. Items such as 'chances for recognition for good work,' 'reward for extra effort,' 'chances for reprimand for poor work' and also 'reprimand for inferior work' have, in all cases, a score of 3 and above. However, interestingly enough, the items, 'chances for promotion for good work' and 'chances for demotion for poor job' are low scoring ones with an average of 2.6 and 2.0 respectively. That probably indicates that although recognition has been made for the good work and also the reprimand is usually given for the poor performance, the reward and sanction in the form of promotion or demotion is not practiced. That probably indicates rather a static employment condition of NIA. Since NIA has been reducing the workforce for the last six seven years and opportunities or vacancies have not been occurring and the demotion also was not normally practiced.

The measuring scale or the index depicting job satisfaction should be of much interest to the management concerned: job satisfaction as a whole is quite satisfactory, scoring 3.4. Regarding each item, an interesting picture again emerges. 'Satisfied with the job,' 'satisfied with the co-worker' are high scoring items, each scoring 4.0. 'Satisfied with the supervisor,' 'satisfied with the past career' are medium scoring items, scoring 3.7 and 3.2 respectively. However, 'satisfaction with pay,' 'satisfaction with career potential' are low scoring items, again confirming the fact that we have seen the static nature of the employment opportunities, promotional opportunities and also that the limited nature of the pay as a motivator, especially in a fixed wage and slow changing wage system is also implied here. In addition, it will be interesting to note that 'Often think of quitting the job' which indicates how committed the individual is to his job and organization or, more correctly how the individual is generally satisfied with his job, shows a fairly substantial percentage, .42 percent, of positive responses, that is, 42 percent of the time, on the average, individuals in this organization are thinking about quitting his job. That is something to be concerned and, of course, we do not know what will be the comparable situation in other organizations in the Philippines. But compared with the scoring from other items within this index itself, this is an indication

99

that job satisfaction, as far as pay and promotion indicate, is not being achieved. It is very interesting to note that this scale itself is a famous JDr (Job Description Index) scale and this index has been used and validated many times over in different situations and this is one of the indices which can easily be translatable to many different cultures. The wording is very simple and the results that one gathers from this index is considered to be consistent and reliable.

The next index, 'growth need potential strength of job incumbent' which is almost the exact adoption of the same index developed by Prof. Hackmann in his work on Work Redesign (1980). This, again, is an instrument, well tested and with the norms available from the results in the western countries. However, we do not think these norms will be quite usable at this stage because the effects of cultural differences are unknown. However, studying the patterns of responses to each of the questions included in the scale should be of great interest because question items themselves probe the underlying preferences or psychological propensities of respondents. Besides, the use of forced choice techniques in the construction of the questions could reveal the true state of the respondent's attitudes. Unlike other simple questions, the forced choice questions compel individuals to choose between two equally desirable or undesirable items and, therefore, what the individual really thinks can be known through this kind of technique. The individual is given no opportunity to take a neutral course or an easy way out. In a fine-point scale, the scores above three or below two may be considered as high scoring or low scoring items respectively. High scoring items, the score which is 3 or above or near 3 or above in this index are items such as 'prefer a job with creativity over a job with better pay,' 'prefer a job with opportunities to learn over a job with respect from supervisor,' 'prefer a job with skill development over a job with better fringe benefits,' 'prefer a job with opportunities to use personal skill over job with teamwork.'

One of the interesting things about this index is that because in pair comparison or a forced choice between equally desirable or undesirable items a few items with similar meanings are posed against items of different characteristics, the implicit ranking of preference is possible. From the six strongly positively scored items, three dominant characteristics become visible. The desire for personal growth and development is a strong preference of the NIA staff members. They will rather prefer a job with skill development over the job with better fringe benefits, a job with opportunities to learn over a job with respect from the supervisor, a job with creativity over a job with better pay. It is important to note also that they will rather prefer a job with opportunities to use personal skills than a job with good teamwork. One can see that they will override better pay, better fringe benefits, even the supervisor's respect and teamwork to achieve personal growth and development. This in itself is an important finding for the management because this overwhelming desire of workers could be harnessed to the mutual benefit of both parties. In introducing any management innovation, paying proper attention to the desires of employees regarding their personal growth and development should be essential preconditions for achieving the wholehearted

100

coopera tion and commitment of the workers.

Another equally important finding is the importance of the supervisory role in the organization. In spite of so much desire for personal achievement the respondents had shown to have in the NIA, they also state that, when confronted with the choice between a job which will prevent one from using his skills that he works hard to develop and a job under a critical and insensitive supervisor, the employees prefer the first over the second alternative, that is, they will rather choose a job which needs no skill over a job under a critical supervisor. It is a surprising finding. The respondents have indicated their very strong or overriding preference or self-development, growth and creativity and yet they rated the good supervisory relationship well over the opportunity for skill and creativity. This again points out how important is a good supervisory relationship in the work culture of NIA, squaring with the finding we have noted in the organizational analysis of the previous chapter.

Another strong preference of the NIA employees is the importance of job security. Respondents answered that they would prefer a job with no challenge over a job with the chance to get laid off. In other words, when the job security is pitted against the job with challenge, the condition that goes well with personal growth and development, the job security is higher rated than the growth, development and creativity.

This indicates a fairly interesting nature of work culture in the NIA. In fact, it could also be the nature of the work culture in Philippine workforce in generaL All these indicate that good working atmosphere, particularly supervisor relationship, job security, creativity and personal achievement are all important, probably in descending order, that the employees in this organization prefer.

In addition, there are medium score items which, again, are consistent with what we have already found. For instance, individuals prefer a job with pleasant working atmosphere over a job with important things to do, and prefer a job with no discretion over a job with financial trouble, prefer a job with poor work conditions over a job with little freedom, prefer a challenging job even if it is isolated from others. These are the second level preferences the individual respondents in this sample choose: good personal relationships, more challenging job, job with more individual freedom are preferred in this atmosphere at NIA. On the whole, we should conclude that in terms of priority the most important characteristics the individual prefer will be prospect for individual achievement and advancement, good supervisory relationships, job security, the last two more important than the first.

101

Job Design Indices and Work Unit Characteristics

Location of Units

In this section, we shall attempt to cross-classify the results of the Job Design Indices by various characteristics of respondents such as location, type of office in which respondents work, type of work done by respondents, and rank or positions of respondents so as to enable us to understand possible influences of these factors on scores obtained by respondents regarding various indices.

The next table, Table 6.3 indicates job design indices scores cross-classified by regions and central office in the National Irrigation Administration of the Philippines.

102

TABLE 6.3 JOB DESIGN INDICES AS SCORES CROSS CLASSIFIED

BY REGION AND CENTRAL OFFICE

Number of Obs. 52 49 44 58 13

Location Region III

Region VI

Region Xl

Central Office Division

Central Office Managers

F. Value

Level of Sign if.

Name of Indices

Task DifficuJ ty M 2.07 2.072 2.011 1.919 2

0.72 0.580 SO 0.434 0.564 0.646 0.518 0.378

Task Variability M 2.625 2.553 2.607 2.616 2.384

0.73 0.572 SO 0.515 0.423 0.581 0.502 0.347

Job Standardization

M 3.592 3.534 3.651 3.454 3.458 0.79 0.530

SO 0.622 0.504 0.580 I 0.608 0.832

Job Authority M 4.043 3.734 4.024 3.888 4.615

4.33 0.002 SO o.m 0.735 0.711 0.703 0.299

Job Pressure M 2.969 2.927 3.041 3.043 2.980

0.49 0.745 SO 0.449 0.564 0.451 82 0.616

Job Accountability M 4.051 4.052 3.992 4.059 4.513

1.65 0.163 SO 0.663 0.637 0.703 0.590 0.411

Job Feedback M 3.005 3.000 3.066 2.737 2.961

3.18 0.014 SO 0.588 0.564 0.489~ 0.332

Feedback from Supervisor

M 2.897 2.817 3.122 2.587 2.613 4.30 0.002

SO 0.702 0.730 0.701 0.594 0.479

Feedback from Peers

M 3.019 2.989 2.704 2.736 3.153 2.20 0.070

SO 0.734 0.800 0.787 0.732 0.746

Expectations of Rewards and Sanctions

M 3.134 3.000 3.083 2.903 2.893 0.74 0.564

SO 0.783 0.740 0.710 0.792 0.501

Expectation of Rewards

M 3.231 3.062 3.147 3.125 3.128 0.18 0.950

SO 0.977 1.135 0.957 0.994 0.674

Expectation of Sanctions

M 3.007 2.943 3.047 2.685 2.666 1.53 0.196

SO 0.872 0.796 0.969 0.864 0.537

Job Expertise M 0.050 -0.148 -0.009 0.030 0.Q35

1.06 0.375 SO 0.495 0.559 0.477 0.559 0.535

Growth Need Strength of Job lncumbent

M 3.114 3.081 3.195 3.194 3.307 1.21 0,309

SO 0.390 0.370 0.418 0.397 0.489

Work Motivation M 4.401 4.343 4.265 4.356 4.717

2.17 0.073 SO 0.472 0.552 0.560 0.445 0.283

Job Satisfaction M 3.434 3.267 3.496 3.345 3.857

2.37 0.054 SO 0.636 0.740 0.504 0.652 0.909

M Means ::> ::>tanaara LJeVlanon

103

This cross-classification is represented by the location of offices in the National Irrigation Administration. This includes Region III, Region VI, Region XI, Central Office Divisions and also Central Office Departmental Managers as a group. The regions are known to have different managerial practices and also to have achieved different level of performance. The inclusion of departmental managers who form a top management group in the National Irrigation Administration will provide an opportunity to compare what the rank and file is thinking about with the responses of the top management in the same type of questionnaire. As in organizational design indices, we shall discuss only the indices which are significantly different between these regions, at least at the .10 level. The first of such indices is Job Authority. The levels of the job authority supposed to have been attained by the various respondents differ according to the location of the office. As expected, the Central Office top management group indicates the highest level of score with regard to this variable. Similarly, the slightly lower scores and middle level scores are achieved by respondents in Region III and Region XL The fact that the responses of Central Office departmental managers, that is a top level group that we have been fortunate to have included in our survey, score very high is in line with what could be expected from the nature of their job itself. They are the highest level managers and they should also be enjoying a much higher level of authority than other managers in the organization. However, why the second highest scpre in job authority is achieved by Region III and Region XI is not easily explainable. The management in Region XI, having achieved a higher level of performance, could have been exercising more control over their operations and, therefore, probably could have enjoyed a higher level of authority. However, why Region III with a poor performance record has a higher level of scores than Region VI and the Central Office divisions is not understandable. The only safe conclusion we can draw from this table that the Central Office managers, the top level managers score the highest level of job authority, consistent with what could be expected from the type of job that they do.

The next index that we would like to discuss is that on the job feedback. In all three regions, Region III, Region VI and Region XI, respondents receive or indicate the higher average scores than those in the Central Office Divisions and also the Central Office Departmental Managers group. It indicates that a more active communication process exists in the operating regions than in the headquarters. When we break this index into two sub indices, one, the feedback from peers and the other, Feedback from the Supervisor, a very intricate relationship are unearthed. The feedback from pPeers is the highest among the Central Office Top Management group, which again is understandable because they, by virtue of positions occupied in the Central Office, will intensely interact between themselves and also with other top level managers. However, interesting points emerged when we compared the scores of the sub-indices by regions. Respondents in Region XI have the lowest average scores and respondents in Region III

. the highest score regarding the sub-index, the feedback from peers. This is almost opposite of the trend that we find in comparing the results of performance between the Regions. The resul ts of performance in Region III is the lowest while Region XI has the highest attainment, in the financial performance. This factor becomes even more

104

interesting when we look again at the next sub-index, Feedback from the Supervisor. In this case, respondents in Region XI have the highest scores whereas respondents in Region III and Region VI have the lowest score. According to these two results, more supervisor oriented, probably more authoritarian management practices seem to be prevalent in Region XI which is found to have attained higher financial results, whereas more peer- oriented relationship exists in Region III or the region where financial performance results are low. Does it mean that work unit which are highly authority­oriented which use a more direct relationship between the supervisors and the subordinates are more successful in achieving financial performance or the causality is the other way round, the financial success encouraging more supervisor-directed relationships? Is there a third factor that causes the authority related management and the financial success to come about? This will have to be further verified before we can make a final say.

The next variable is the job satisfaction. In this the Central Office managers score highest and the scores among the other regional groups are indistinguishable from each other. In the case of Work Motivation, the Central Office Managers score very high whereas respondents Region XI scores the lower motivation average than those in the Region III. This is a rather unexpected finding. Why should the financially successful group have lower work motivation than those in the less financially successful group. Probably the fact that a region has the lowest financial results and is also attaining the lower financial viability make respondents in that region more conscious of the need for higher achievement than Region XI. Or possibly the respondents in those regions are trying to show, because of their weakness in financial performance, that they have more motivation than the other groups. These are speculations or at best plausible explanations. On the whole the higher attainment of the central office manager group in a number of indices is understandable. It is remarkable that in analyzing the feedback variable, the responses from financially high performing regions indicate the existence of more supervisor feedback and less of the feedback from the peers. This we note as an intriguing aspect and has to be interpreted along with the other findings that we have already observed in the previous Chapter on Organizational Design.

Organization Type

Next we are dealing with the cross-classification of job design indices by type of organization such as PIOs (Provincial Irrigation Systems), National Irrigation Systems and the Central Office or Regional Office divisions.

105

TABLE 6.4 JOB DESIGN INDICES CROSS CLASSIFIED BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES

Number of Obs. 58 58 62 45

Location Central Regional System PIO F. Level OfficelDiv. OfficelDiv. Value of Signif.

Name of Indices

M 1.919 1.931 2.233 1.982 Task 4.58 0.003 Difficulty SD 0.518 0.499 0.570 0.509

M 2.616 2.551 2.584 2.605 Task 0.18 0.907 Variability SD 0.502 0.438 0.511 0.547

M 3.454 3.469 3.608 3.717 Job 2.42 0.067 Standarclization 0.608 0.490 0.533 0.601

3.888 4.005 Job Authority 0.25 0.859

SD 0.703 0.748 0.728 0.749

M 3.043 2.892 3.008 3.034 Job Pressure 1.16 0.326

SO 0.482 0.454 0.442 0.546

M 4.059 4.086 3.926 4.159 Job 1.32 0.270 Accountability SD 0.590 0.548 0.735 0.583

M 2.737 2.964 3.142 2.961 Job Feedback 6.12 0.000

SO 0.443 0.617 0.515 0.437

M 2.587 2.781 3.131 2.894 Feedback from 6.94 0.000 Supervisor SD 0.594 0.767 0.676 0.570

M 2.736 2.991 3.016 2.811 Feedback from 1.81 0.147 Peers SD 0.732 0.752 0.773 0.820

Expectations of M 2.903 2.806 3.207 3.231 Rewards and 4.55 0.004 Sanctions SD 0.792 0.805 0.638 0.626

M 3.125 2.848 3.405 3.207 Expectation of 3.06 0.029 Rewards SD 0.994 1.145 0.841 0.993

M 2.685 2.763 3.017 3.227 Expectation of 4.13 0.007 Sanctions SD 0.864 0.915 0.790 0.806

M 0.030 -0.003 -0.048 0.057 Job Expertise 0.36 0.781

SO 0.559 0.544 0.584 0.374

Growth Need M 3.194 3.136 3.157 3.100 Strength of Job 0.50 0.685 Incumbent SD 0.397 0.361 0.454 0.327

1\ 4.356 4.441 4.219 4.359 Work Motivation 2.00 0.115

SO 0.445 0.483 0.525 0.547

M 3345 3.218 3.539 3.419 Job Satisfaction :: 2.75 0.044

0652 0.587 0.592 0.639

!VI I' :>u :>1 anaara UCVla{]On

106

The supposition here is that though the National Irrigation Systems and the Provincial Irrigation Offices both operate on the profit and loss basis, the greater control the systems enjoy over their operations will make them differ from the PIOs, requiring or fostering different job design characteristics. It should be noted that the irrigation systems manage the state owned irrigation works and supply water to farmers as a form of service for which the service fees are collected. PIOs too operates on a similar basis but they have much less control over their operations than the Systems because PIOs only construct or build the irrigation structures for the local organizations and collect the repayment of the constructed cost or the payment for use of their services or equipments such as earth moving machines. The operations of these small systems are in the hands of the local irrigation organizations. Regional and headquarter units on the other hand are purely administrative divisions. Therefore, this nature of the work itself should to some extent influence the type of job characteristics or job responses preferred or fostered in these respective organizations. It is, therefore, hypothesized that different job design characteristics will appear in different types of organizations.

The first job design index we tackle in this table is Job Standardization. Respondents from the PIO and the systems score averages higher than those from the headquarter units and the regional divisions or those in the administrative units. Does it mean that the jobs in systems and PIOs are much more formalized and structurally defined than those in the regional office divisions and also headquarter division? That could be possible because the systems and the PIOs are operating divisions on whose operations the whole financial health or the management of irrigation system rests. Their jobs are likely to be paid much more attention and also likely to be more well designed. In addition, as irrigation system management is more technically oriented or determined, most of the jobs in the system management may be more standardized than pure administrative jobs. Another important point that we should mention here is that in the chapter the micro organizational analysis, Chapter 5, the importance of unit standardization in which units' objectives, criteria, tasks, rules are clearly defined has been recognized. We have already observed in the same chapter that the more clearly a unit's role is specified and defined, the more likely is the success of the unit.When we look at the next variable, job authority, which is closely related to the job standardization as another aspect of formalization we find a similar pattern though statistically not significant. The systems and PIOs have higher scores regarding job authrity than the administrative units. The purpose of mentioning this point is just to support that even though statistically not significant job authority is also going in a similar direction as job standardization.

As in the previous section, we also find that the job feedback and also its sub indices, feedback from peers and feedback from the supervisor, are statistically significant in distinguishing between different types of organizations. It is found that regarding the job feedback, systems score the highest average compared to all three other types of organizations. Likewise, for these two sub indices, the feedback from peers and feedback from the supervisors, the average of the respondents' scores in the

107

systems are also higher than those of scores attained by the respondents in the other three types of units, PIOs, Regional Divisions and Central Divisions. This indicates that systems, as distinguished from other type of organization units, seem to foster more active communication process.

Next, we move to reward and sanctions. The main index, the expectation of rewards and sanctions as well as sub indices, the expectation of rewards and the expectation of sanctions are important variables with regard to distinguishing how different types of organizations perform. It is noted that the systems and PIOs score the higher averages with regard to these variables than Central Office units and regional office divisions. That indicates that not only the incentive system but also the sanctions and punishment is much more operative in these operating organizations than in the administrative divisions. This point also fits in well with the actual facts of life because only the Systems and PIOs can apply these financial rewards and punishment principles as the other type of units are not financially accountable, having no independent source of revenue. The next index we come across as an important variable with regard to type of organization is Job Satisfaction. Here, in the job satisfaction, systems and PIOs again are higher scorers than the administrative units or administrative divisions. Again, the systems and PIOs being operating divisions enjoy much more leeway and decision making power to make their jobs more challenging. Probably opportunities for experimentation, improvisation and innovation exist there. In addition, financial rewards could also be used in these financially accountable systems. These probably are the reasons for why higher level of job satisfaction is attained in these types of organization. HowE~ver, as far as work motivation is concerned, all types of organizations score the same average. With regard to the task difficulty, the systems depict the highest score, probably indicating the level of the technical sophistication of jobs in systems, challenged by the physical as well as social environment.

The findings regarding the job design indices goes well with the conclusions from the results of the organizational design indices. This is very significant because we have earlier noted that the unit standardization, the chain of command, the group communication and group pressure are important variables in determining the performance of the unit. In the job design indices also, a similar inference can be made. We observed that systems and PIOs depict high scores with regard to job the standardization, the job feedback and also expectation of reward and sanctions in contrast to divisional offices. At the same time the same two types of organizations, systems and PIO also show a higher level of job satisfaction. Though we cannot be sure, it is likely that a high degree of standardization, feedback, and performance orientation such as use of rewards and sanctions will lead to or are correlated also with job satisfaction, probably as the direct outcome of the job design. This is only a conjecture and we still have to verify by correlational analysis.

108

Ranks of Respondents

The next table is job design indices by the rank of job or the level of responsibility in the National Irrigation Administration.

109

TABLE 6.5 JOB DESIGN INDICES BY RANK OF THE JOBS

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES

Number of Observations 153 70 13

Location Lower Middle Higher F. Level Ranks Ranks Level Mgrs. Value of Signif.

Name of Indices

M 2.053 1.952 2.022 Task 0.84 0.431 Difficulty SO 0.553 0.500 0.378

M 2.576 2.614 2.384 Task 1.20 0.236 Variability SO 0.503 0.482 0.347

M 3.565 3.532 3.458 Job § 0.23 0.794 Standardization SO 0.570 0.551

M 3.890 4.011 Job Authority I 0.299

6.37 0.002 SO 0.782 0.592

M 3.000 2.978 2.980 Job Pressure 0.05 0.951

SO 0.459 0.521 0.616

M 3.976 4.208 4.513 Job 6.70 0.001 Accountability SO 0.624 0.600 0.411

M 2.941 2985 2.961 Job Feedback 0.16 0.851

SD 0.529 0.533 0.332

M 2.866 2.818 2.613 Feedback from 0.76 0.470 SupE'rvisor SO 0.693 0.679 0.479

M 2.823 3.057 3.153 Feedback from 2.93 0.055 Peers SO 0.772 0.750 0.746

Expectations of M 3.041 3.010 2893 Rewards and 0.22 0.799 Sanctions SO 0.775 0.665 0.501

3.152 3.144 3.128 Expectation of 0.00 0.995 Rewards SO 1.026 0.981 0.674

M 2.924 2.883 2.666 Expectation of 0.48 0.618 Sanctions SO 0.912 0.761 0.537

M -0.054 0.127 0.035 Job Expertise 2.76 0.065

SO 0.470 0.616 0.535

Growth Need M 3131 3.190 3.307 Strength of Job 1.45 0.236 Incwnbent SO 0.388 0.394 0.489

M 4.302 4.426 4.717 Work Motivation 5.12 0.006ffi1S% 0.413 0.283

.405 3325 3.857 Job Satisfaction 374 0.025

SO 0.641 0.586 0.909

NtCnnslVl ::J1J :>lant.. (In.l IJ(lVlatlOn

110

Here we divide the respondents into three categories: higher level managers which consist mostly of top management in the central office, top departmental managers in the Central Office who are requested to answer these questionnaires, middle level managers which include the system managers and assistant managers, heads of the divisions and assistant heads of the divisions, lower level managers include supervisors and clerical level officers. This classification should be correlated with the level of attainment of scores regarding various aspects of the job design. For instance, the variable such as job authority will be expected to be higher among the higher level managers than in the middle and lower level managers. This cross classification is shown in the Table 6.5. We find that in this table, job authority and job accountability are positively related to the order of the job ranks, that is, the higher the level of managers the higher the scores in these variables. It is a reasonable finding in view of the fact that the higher level managers will definitely have to be more accountable and also will have enjoyed more job authority. We also find that Job Feedback, principally, the feedback from the peers again follows the pattern that we have seen: higher level managers scoring higher, the middle level being at the middle range and the lower ranks scoring the lowest all in descending order. With regard to job expertise, we see a somewhat different pattern: the middle level manager having the highest job expertise and the higher level manager the lower expertise, and the lower ranks, of course, with the lowest level of expertise. The fact that middle level managers having higher scores with regard to job expertise is probably due to the fact that this category includes managers of the systems, managers of the PIOs and divisional heads. All managers of the PIOs and the systems as well as their assistants are engineers. In the case of divisions too, there are some technical divisions again headed by the technically trained personnel. On the other hand, departmental managers may include not only technical trained managers but also the people with the general administrative training who may not have much technical training or expertise. That probably is the reason why their averages are lower than the middle level managers in job expertise scale which examines the level of professional or technical skills one possesses.

Next, we would like to discuss the motivation which probably serves an engine of job performance and job satisfaction. First, it is found that the degree of motivation goes in consonance with the rank of respondents. The higher the rank of manager the higher will be the scores by him with regard to motivation. Probably with more responsibility and more authority to make own choices the higher level managers are likely to have higher work motivation. A question still needs to be raised as to whether the lower work motivation among the lower ranks should be accepted as a matter of fact or be addressed as a problem to overcome. Next important item is job satisfaction which can be considered as the outcome of a number of factors including both opportunities for job enrichment, favourable work contest and effective reward system. Here in this case again we find the higher level managers score the highest averages regarding this variable while lower ranks as a group score a mid average and the middle level managers score the lowest degree of job satisfaction. This is an interesting finding because this table contrasts with what we have observed regarding variables such as job

111

authority, job accountability, feedback motivation the scores for which go up or down with the rank of the respondent. But here in this case middle level managers seem to be the lowest scorers in contrast to both lower ranks and higher level managers in job satisfaction. Why do the middle level managers score the lowest with regard to job satisfaction? It may be that as each work unit is accountable for financial success or measured by a number of criteria, the greater pressure has been put on the middle level managers, especially system managers and PIO managers who manage these units. They at the same time also have to conform to certain norms or expectations regarding relationship with the employees. If that interpretation is correct, they probably are squeezed between the obligation, both professional and social, to their work group and at the same time the pressure from the above. They are probably like a classic case of manager in-between. Whether this finding is corroborated with the evidence from other tables is still to be seen. Yet, why the middle managers are the lowest scorers regarding the job satisfaction still begs a serious answer. On the whole, we see that ranks and the job authority, job feedback and job satisfaction and motivations generally vary according to the order of the rank, the higher the rank the higher the average score for these variables.

Nature of Job

The next is the presentation of job design indices cross-classified by the nature of the job.

112

TABLE 6.6 JOB DESIGN INDICES BY NATURE OF JOB

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, THE PHILIPPINES

Location Managerial Engineering and Technical

Administ­rative

Institut­ional

F. Value

Level of Sign if.

Name of Indices

Task Difficulty

M 2.015 2.233 ~ 0.557 0.504

2.184 6.64 0.000

SO 0.370 0.526

Task Variability

M 2.402 2.614 2.587 2.552 0.46 0.709

SO 0.403 0.527 0.488 0.460

Job Standardization

M 3.5 3.609 3.507 3.684 0.82 0.483

SO 0.745 0.528 0.596

Job Authority M 4.486 3.927 3.896

3.84 0.010 SO 0.441 0.697 0.764

Job Pressure M 2.902 3.030 3.003

0.67 0.571 SO 0.582 0.454 0.502

Job Accountability

M 4.490 3.938 4.068 4.175 3.81 0.010

SO 0.388 0.735 0.579 0.545

Job Feedback M 2.961 3.145 2.849 3.060

5.11 0.001 SO 0.419 0.495 0.541 0.330

Feedback from Supervisor

M 2.734 3.087 2.706 3.039 5.45 0.001

SO 0.528 0.650 0.700 0.473

Feedback from Peers

M 3.088 3.109 2.803 2.842 2.69 0.047

SO 0.870 0.799 0.745 0.646

Expectations of Rewards and Sanctions

M 2.933 3.203 2.883 3.464 5.41 0.001

SO 0.683 0.587 0.776 0.604

Expectation of Rewards

M 3.240 3376 2.973 3.491 3.30 0.021

SO 0.830 0.877 1.071 0.714

Expectation of Sanctions

M 2.644 3.039 2.783 3.438 4.49 0.004

SO 0.672 0.745 0.895 0.762

Job Expertise M 0.050 ·0.015 0.006 0.155

0.51 0.675 SO 0.502 0.593 0.517 0.371

Growth Need Strength of Job Incumbent

M 3.25 3.125 3.165 3.138 0.46 0.709

SO 0.441 0.461 0.378 0.240

Work Motivation M 4.685 4.228 4.370 I 4.444

4.33 0.005 SO 0.327 0.506 0.506 I 0.427

Job Sa tisfaction M 3.738 3.482 3.300 3.593

2.75 0.013 SO 0.849 0.614 0.629 0.559

IVI Mcans ;:>u ;:>[i lnaara uevumon

113

Here we have classified into four different types of jobs. One is managerial type, the other the engineering and technical, the third being administrative and the fourth, the institutional. These classifications are devised on the basis of the type of people employed in the National Irrigation Administration. The managerial group will include managers and assistant managers of the systems as well as the head and assistant heads of the divisions. They are definitely in the managerial positions. In addition, this category will also include the top level managers from the Central Office. The engineering and technical group includes engineers as well as technicians such as watermasters, draughtsmen whereas the administrative group includes accountants, work superintendents, clerical offices and work supervisors who are of non technical nature. The institutional are the group of people who are employed, in some cases on a temporary basis, to organize the institutional aspects of irrigation such as interfacing with farmers. These people are usually trained in social sciences and perform the special function of social organizers with regard to distribution of irrigated water, organizing farmers into the users' unions and so on.

It is expected that if the jobs are properly designed, various categories of jobs would have been endowed with differing but appropriate characteristics and would also have enjoyed certain prerogatives appropriate to the demands of their respective tasks. In other words, we will expect that job variability and task difficulty will be higher in the managerial and technical jobs rather than the administrative jobs. Likewise, job standardization will probably be higher in the administrative and engineering jobs than in the managerial job. Similarly, managerial jobs would have much more job authority than other categories of jobs. We wish to find out whether various aspects of the jobs are being designed according to what is normally expected or what is normally considered appropriate to a particular type of job. Whether respondents' answers conform to these expectations or whether they indicate any out of the way or inconsistency in their job characteristics and prerogatives. Interesting enough, we find that unlike other cross-classification, out of sixteen indices, eleven indices show significant variations of averages among these various job types or job groupings, and only five indices show no statistically significant difference between these job types which indicate the importance of the nature or types of jobs in determining the characteristics of the jobs.

Any discrepancy from the expectation should provide food for thought and suggest a job redesign in the National Irrigation Administration and, therefore, we would like to carefully like to look at how respondents in each job category or each job type respond to the questions or score in various scales in this analysis.

In this table, we first note that the managerial personnel attains the highest scores with regard to the job authority and job accountability. However, for both cases, the second highest scorers are not engineering and technical but the institutional personnel, people working as institutional organizers. Is it because they are doing a special type or missionary type of job in which they are given more latitude and more leeway in

114

performing their job? Scoring lower averages by engineering and technical and administrative job, compared with scores by the managerial group, with regard to these two variables is in the expected direction. With regard to the job feedback and expectation of rewards and sanctions which come under the heading of Feedback and Control we find some interesting results. Regarding the job feedback, the engineering personnel scores the highest average and the institutional in the second position and the managerial group corne in the third position in terms of the average scores. Why the average of the job feedback score is higher among the engineering than in managerial is something to be explored. Is the management more insulated from the various work colleagues than the other type of jobs. Again, interesting enough, for the feedback from the supervisors and the expectation of rewards and sanctions, higher averages are scored by engineering personnel than by the other three categories. The fact that the engineering personnel score higher than the managerial groups in this job feedback and control is very significant because it possibly highlights the weakness of managerial relationships in this regard, when compared with the professional and technical relationships. On the other hand, it may also mean that engineering and technical persons work more as a team or as a professional group and, therefore, the feedback and professional discussions are more frequent among these people than the managerial group. Anyway this factor will have to be taken into account in interpreting the job design of the NIA in its operating and administrative divisions.

As expected with regard to task difficulty, the administrative group that include the clerical and lower supervisory jobs scores the lowest average. In other words, the task difficulty is again related to the type of job and highest scores are achieved again by engineering and technical groups. The reason why the engineering group score the highest is not too far to seek: the category which includes engineers mainly responsible for the management of the irrigation systems, is dealing with the tasks which are relatively difficult, in which problems arise frequently, and the outcome of which could not easily be predicted. Other indices which serve as intervening variables like the growth need strength of the job incumbent and the job expertise, as well as the task variability, there are no significant differences between these four types of jobs.

With regard to the work motivation, we find that managers score the highest. The disturbing trend is that the engineering and technical personnel whom we found to be high scorers regarding feedback and expectation of reward and sanctions scores the lowest in the case of Work Motivation. In the case of job satisfaction, the key outcome of job design, we again find a similar trend: the managerial group score the highest average whereas engineering and technical personnel again score the second lowest. Why the engineering and technical personnel score persistently lower work motivation and job satisfaction is something to be investigated. Is it because they are not challenged enough which cannot be the case as we already noted their rating of their task as challenging and difficult or is it because autonomy has not been given to them or is it because their jobs are too restrictive? The fact that this group, engineering and technical personnel, attained the lowest average in respect of job accountability and the second

l15

lowest average in job authority suggests that there may be serious inadequacies in the design of the jobs of these personnel. The job accountability and job authority being an itegral part of meaningfulness of the job, the diminution of these two factors perhaps lead to the adverse effects on job motivation and satisfaction.

The Summary and Questions Raised

These five tables explain approximately work culture that exists in the National Irrigation Administration. If we may recapitulate, the following are the points we have stressed in this analysis so far.

1. We have noted the type of work culture that prevails probably generally in the Philippines and particularly in the National Irrigation Administra tion.

2. The respondents prefer individual achievement and creativity over better pay, facilities, working conditions. Yet, when they are confronted with the choice between the personal initiative and achievement on one hand and the job security and good working relationships on the other hand, especially with supervisor, they prefer the second job security and good supervisory relations over the first. This probably suggests the underlying preference of the NIA employees, possible of the characteristics of the Filipino work culture also. These are the indication of preferences we learned from the growth need strength of job incumbent.

3. We also noted with regard to the job satisfaction index the satisfaction with the pay and also the satisfaction with the career potential are rather relatively poor in the National Irrigation Administration as a whole. We also find similar results in the expectation of rewards and sanctions. Although the jobs are fairly stable and the recognition of good work or admonition of the poor job performance is there, the opportunities for promotion for good work or the chances of demotion for poor job are low scoring items in this index, again indicating that the chances for promotion or the chances for demotion are rather remote.

4. We also noted that the job feedback from the supervisor and also from the peers has a low average in this organization, suggesting again something needs to be done with regard to communication and team process.

5. With regard to regional differences in various respects of job indices, we have mixed results. No predominant, no overwhelming indication that the regions which are supposed to have obtained higher level of financial viability score higher in the various job design aspects except that Region XI scores a highest average with regard to the feedback from the peers.

116

This probably is due to the fact that the approximation or the average by the region will be too rough a classification because in the region it will include different types of personnel, different types of jobs, in different sub-organizations such as PIOs, NISs and Administrative Divisions which, again, themselves can differ from each other.

6. However, we have very indicative results from the next few tables. When we cross-classified the results by the type of organization, we found that PIOs and Systems scored a higher level of job satisfaction. On the other hand, these sub organizations also depict such distinct characteristics such as higher level of feedback, higher level of job authority, and higher level of task difficulty, suggesting that job authority, feedback from the peers, feedback from the job and the reward and sanctions are probably related to job satisfaction.

7. With regard to level of managerial ranks, we find that all these significant variations are in most cases related to the rank order. The higher the rank the higher the scores for a number of items such as job authority, feedback from the peers, job accountability and work motivation. It is understandable that as the job authority, the job feedback, and job accountability go in tandem with the rank order, the higher ranks receiving the higher average, the work motivation, the supposed outcome of the job design will go in the same direction. In addition, one astounding finding was that the middle level managers are found to have attained the lowest job satisfaction scores. As the middle managers include System managers and PIO managers, the kingpin of the NIA administration, this question begs another deserving attention. An important pointer from these findings is that if NIA wishes to make its employees more participative and motivated, the job design of middle and lower ranks will have to be reconsidered.

8. In the case of classification by the type of job such as managerial, engineering, administrative and institutional which we expect should be related to the various aspects of job design, have made a number of observations which need to be explored further. We find that the engineering and technical personnel, though active or higher scorers in the job feedback and the reward and sanction aspects are the low scorers with regard to Job Satisfaction and Motivation. On the other hand, as the engineering and technical personnel also are found to have the lowest scores in job authority and job accountability, we suspect that the diminution of the meaninfulness of the job in which these two factors figure importantly is principally responsible for the low job motivation and low job satisfaction among the engineering and technical personnel.

117

We have noted earlier that a similar pattern was observed when we compated the ranks of the respondents with the levels of scores in various job characteristics: the lower the ranks the lower the job motivation and the job satisfaction and also the lower the scores in job accountability and authority. In addition, we have noticed that there exists a high degree of disquiet among the employees, indicated by a rather high percentage (40 percent) of respondents who think of quitting the job. All these suggest that how to make the jobs of these personnel more meaningful and responsible will be one of the areas for exploration especially if NIA intends to practice more collaborative and participative management.

Patterns of Relationships among Job Design Indices

In the previous section we worked with the assumption that job design indices will be influenced by various locational, structural and sociological data such as types of organization, the nature of the job, the location of the job and the specialization of the job. These are plausible causes which can influence how respondents answer the questions relating to various aspects of their jobs. In this section we will be interested in knowing how these indices themselves are patterned or organized in an empirical way. That means how various characteristics of the job design related to each other as they exist in the NIA. This question is important to understanding the general behaviour of job relationship and job design in any organization. This will tell us which are the pivotal factors which influence other related factors, that is, which factors are responsible for the ultimate outcome such as job satisfaction, and which factors are influential for motivational aspects; these questions will be answered by analysis in this section. One of the first things we did for this purpose was intercorrelating each of the index with all other indices one by one, and Table 6.7 presents the intercorrelations between job design indices. In this table we have organized these indices according to the conceptual schemes we have developed earlier such as challenge, structure, autonomy, feedback and control, moderator, intervening variables and outcome. These are the conceptually important classifications which we have presented earlier. This classification will make it easier for us to understand how these indices are interrelated or how the relationships can be interpreted.

118

INDICES

CHALLENGE Task Difficulty

Task Variability

STRUCTURE Job Standardization AUTONOMY

Job AuthOrity

Job Pressure

Job Accountability

FEEDBACK AND CONTRQI.. Feedback from Peers Feedback fromSupervisor

~tion ofRewards Expectation of Sanctions

MQQERAIORS

Job Expertise Growth Need Strength IN I'ERVENIN~ Work Motivation

QUfCQME

Job Satisfaction

TABLE 6.7

INTER CORRELATION BETWEEN JOB DESIGN INDIcei

T T J J J J F F E

D V S A P Ace. P S R

1 -0.23 1

.... -­ --­ --. --_. ,I- ­ I­ - • 0.22 : \1 0.22

.... ........ 1 ....... 0.39 •

1 - --­1 \. 0.18

" l'

0.3 0.2

0.3 0.2 --­ -­-­0.19 •

I I

r--P-24 •-­1 ~..0.37 r ...

E J S E

- . - .

-­ -­0.24

~19

0.3 ir

~0.24 : 1

1

G W J Number of

N M Sat Correlations

I with Other

1

=- . -0.18 1

---,0.19 I 5

•0.25 ~ D-­ -­

0.19 0.43 8

3 0.36 7

0.42 5

0

1 1

1 4

n 2

TO Task Difficulty TV Task Variability JS Job Standardization JA Job Authority JP Job Pressure JAcc. Job Accountability FP FeedJac:k from Peers FS FeedJack from SUpervisor ER Expectation of Rewards ES Expectation of Sanctions JE Job expertise GNI Growth Need Strength of Job Incurment WM Work Motivation JSat. Job Satisfaction

119

Table 6.7 indicates quite a fairly high number of expected inter correlations among the indices. Though each index is constructed independently of the other, each is conc'~ptually related to the other and, thus, the incidence of correlations among these indices is natural. What we want to find out is what kind of patterns of relationship emerge from this picture. First of alt the mere count of number indicates that the job accountability index has eight intercorrelations with other variables. The next one is the feedback from the supervisor which accounted for seven intercorrelations. Job standardization, job authority and expectation of rewards each has five intercorrelations with other variables. One can see from the table that the job accountability is much related with the other items, thus indicating its importance. Likewise, the job feedback from the supervisor also is another much related item. The job standardization, we know, is very similar to the unit standardization in our previous chapter on organizational design indices. We have noted there that the unit standardization is an important variable. Likewise we also notice here the job standardization as having a number of significant relationships with other variables. The next two variables are the job authority which is part of the concept of Autonomy and the expectation of reward which belong to Feedback and Control category, each having five intercorrelations.

When we look at the correlation table very carefully we find that there are a number of sub-sets the elements of which interrelate themselves very closely. One such sub-set is job standardization, job authority and job accountability. All three of them are interrelated to each other. Likewise, job accountability, feedback from supervisor and feedback from peers also are interrelated among themselves, each one relating to the other in these three variables. So also are the feedback from supervisor, the expectation of rewards and the expectation of sanctions, again, interrelated among themselves. In addition, job standardization, job authority, feedback from supervisor and expectation of rewards, all these four variables also are interrelated amongst themselves. Interesting enough that these sub sets are tied to each other again by some common variable, such as, the job accountability, the feedback from supervisor and the expectation of rewards. These we may call are important pivotal variables or pivotal indices. We have earlier noted the job accountability and the feedback from supervisor are the two high scoring variables, each having a large set of intercorrelations. The expectation of reward index also scores a number of intercorrelations with other variables. The picture that emerges here is that job accountability, feedback from supervisor and expectation of rewards are important variables which together link a series of sub set of inter correlations.

Another look at these much correlated five variables will show that while Job Standardization belongs to the structure, the job accountability and the job authority falls under the concept of Autonomy, and the feedback from supervisors and expectation of rewards come under the Feedback and Control. In other words, structure, autonomy and feedback and control are important aspects of management process actively operating in the work units. We could also realize that while the structure is management-determined, feedback and control as well as autonomy factors can vary between work units as influenced by the local supervisory authority. That suggests that

120

a web of interactions linking the formal control with the feedback process and incentive structure is a predominant theme of the unit management in NIA.

The next we attempt to correlate these variables with the outcome to understand the effects of all these variables. There are two variables which can be defined as the outcome variables: work motivation and job satisfaction. While the job satisfaction is the final outcome of any job design and operations, the work motivation is an intervening variable which operates between causally prior variables included in Job Challenge, Structure, Autonomy and Feedback and Control on one hand and the Job Satisfaction on the other. Work motivation will, in fact, be very much influenced by the actual work process in the organization. First, we correlate the job satisfaction with the rest of the variables. We find that only two variables, feedback from supervisor and expectation of rewards, are related to Job Satisfaction. Though there are other variables statistically correlated to the job satisfaction, probably because of sample size (with a very large sample the correlations as low as 0.13 will have been significantly correlated at 0.05 level), we discarded these and took in only items which are very highly significant. The high relationship between the expectation of rewards and job satisfaction is meaningful because in the situation like in the Philippines where the monetary remuneration is very important, the expectation of rewards, particularly monetary incentives, will have a pronounced effect on job satisfaction. With low salaries and the high rate of inflation, it will be very important for these respondents to earn extra money: the marginal value of money will be very high and money rewards will be a very motivating factor. Another interesting point is that the feedback from the supervisors is highly correlated to the job satisfaction. This finding in a way vindicates what we have been all along noticing in the managerial behaviour in the National Irrigation Administration. Usually we will say that interaction and feedback will increase the work motivation or even the job satisfaction. Knowing where one is standing and receiving the encouragement from the supervisor will definitely motivate the worker. This we can see from the job design theories such as the expectancy or reinforcement theory. But, in fact, that of all variables, the job feedback from the supervisor is highly related to the job satisfaction probably suggests a special condition of the NIA. It shows that the blessing or assurance from the top is very important in this setting, and it also smacks a somewhat paternalistic role of the supervisor in this setting. This, we note, has been detected all along our findings. as well.

Next is work motivation. As expected, motivation is related to a number of variables. Motivation is related negatively to the task variability, positively to the job standardization, the job authority and the job accountability. In other words, the more well defined a job is, the higher will be the motivation of the job holder. In addition, the more responsibility or autonomy one enjoys in performing his job, the higher also is his motivation. All these three correlations are theoretically very sound and this is what could be expected. However, the finding that the task variability are negatively related to work motivation is an explanation. Normally we would have thought that a challenging job or the variability in job will have made the individuals life more

121

interesting and his motivation will have been increased. Perhaps in the case of NIA the proper definition of job and its authority and responsibility is more important than variability of the job or the challenging nature of the job. It seems that the people or the employees in this organization prefer more defined and dear cut responsibility and also better recognized authority in performing this job rather than challenge or the changeability of the job. This probably springs also partly the governmental nature of the organization and traditions of the bureaucratic system of which NIA once was. Structured bureaucratic systems have learnt to go according to the rules and regulations within defined limits; the authority to legitimize one's activities are preferable to challenging but more uncertain tasks. Whether it also be the general cultural orientation of the Philippine workforce is unfathomable at this stage. These are the queries that we shall have take into account when we interpret the whole of the NIA organizational behaviour.

Causal Models of Job Design Indices: Unit-wise Regression Analysis

The analysis we have made in the last section is based on a sample of individual questionnaires answered by 236 respondents. The unit of the study in that exercise is the individual respondent or NIA official who answered the job design questionnaire. The scales or index values are computed for each individual questionnaire and these individual values are analyzed by using various statistical tools. On the other hand, it will be noted that we have analyzed the organization design questionnaire by individual work unit in which the average scale values of the supervisor and members of each work unit are used for that analysis. While the study of individual responses to the job design questionnaire is necessary and useful, a careful look at the job design indices on the basis of work unit or job design index values of work units will provide an added insight to the working of job performance processes in the organization unit. In addition, this will give us an opportunity to put job design indices and organizational design indices on a comparable basis. By this, the job design scores of the work unit could. be used in the overall micro model of organizational units. Accordingly, the respondent's scores for each index in a unit are averaged and the resulting values are designated as the work unit job design values of various variables, such as, job standardization, job authority etc.

As we have done in Chapter 5 on the Organizational Design, these unit scores are used to find out the causal order of the variables, that is, which organizational units attain high job satisfaction or work motivation ?, what are the characteristics of those units which achieve and those which do not? and which causal variables are more important than others ?

We have already postulated earlier that the job expertise and the growth need strength are moderating variables preceding other independent variables such as the task related variables, autonomy and feedback and control variables. Work motivation operates'between these variables and the final outcome variable, the job satisfaction.

122

We, therefore, attempt the hierarchical regression analysis according to the causal order just mentioned. The first variable entering the equation was the growth-need­strength of the job incumbent. This variable tests the basic attitudes that may influence the behaviour of the job incumbent at the workplace. Therefore, this variable should be prior to other structural and process variables operating in the workplace. This variable is found to be related to the job satisfaction though the relationship was weak. It is also possible that this relationship represents the spurious effects of the growth-need-strength being related to a third variable which, again, is related to the job satisfaction.

In the next equation, the task difficulty, the task variability and the job standardization, all belonging to the job challenge and job structure entered in addition to the growth-need-strength. Though R square is slightly improved, all variables in the equation, the new as well as the old ones (the Growth Need Strength), are not statistically significantly related to the job satisfaction, as indicated by the B Values and the Significant results. In the next equation, variables belonging to the job autonomy, such as, job accountability, job authority and job pressure are added. The results again show that none of the variables in the equation are significantly related to the dependent variables and the R square is not improved at all.

In the next phase, the feedback and control factors including the job feedback from the peers, the job feedback from the supervisor, the expectation of rewards and sanctions entered. The result is dramatic. The feedback from the supervisor, the two expectation variables are statistically significantly related to the job satisfaction and the R square is .26 with the F statistic at .015 per cent level significance. In the last equation, the work motivation was entered with no significant results.

The whole exercise is not shown in tables because most of the equations are insignificant. The revised equation which included only significant variables is shown in Table 6.8.

123

TABLE 6.8 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES OF WORK UNITS

Dependent variable is: JOBSAT Sample Range: 1 - 100 Number of Observations: 95

EjARIABLE C

COEFFICIENT

3.5204905

STD. ERROR

0.4262674 I T-STAT.

8.2588788

2-TAIL SIG.

0.000

!

FEEDS

EXPS

0.2443320

-0.1770128

0.1003268

o .0831855

2. 43536~~ -2.127928

0.017

0.037

EXPR 0.2302780 0.0723370 3.1834070 0.002

TASKVAR -0.3853997 0.1329751 -2.8982836 0.005

0.227927 Mean of Dependent Var. 3.458271 Adjusted R-Squared 0.193613 S.D. of Dependent Var. 0.527835 S.E. of Regression 0.473991 Sum of Squared Resid. 20.22005 F-Statistic 6.642336 Log Likelihood -61.30705

LEGEND

C Constant JOBSAT Job Satisfaction FEEDS Feedback from Supervisor EXPS Expectation of Sanctions EXPR Expectation of Rewards TASKVAR Task Variability

The feedback from the supervisor, the expectation of reward, the expectation of sanctions and the task variability are statistically significantly related to the dependent variable. Both the task variability and the expectation of the sanction show the negative relations, meaning these two variables have negative effects on the job satisfaction which, again, is not unexpected. However, the significant relationship of the feedback from the supervisor is the confirmation to what we have observed in the previous analysis on the individual respondent's answers. Likewise, the positive relationship of the expectation of rewards to the job satisfaction also is previously discussed. The important point here is that out of variables suspected to be related to the job satisfaction, only the expectation of sanction, the expectation of reward, task variability, the feedback from the supervisor remains. This finding not only is consistent with the observations in the last section but also confirms the significance of contextual and extreming factors such as the rewards, sanctions and feedback in influencing the level of job satisfaction in NIA.

Next, we repeat the same procedure of the hierarchical regression analysiS taking the work motivation as the dependent variable. Table 6.9 indicates the final results of those variables significantly related to the dependent variables.

124

TABLE 6.9 REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF JOB DESIGN INDICES AND WORK MOTIVATION

IN WORK UNITS

Dependent Variable is: WORKMO Sample Range: 1 - 100 Number of Observations: 95

VARIABLE I COEFFICI I

STD. E I

TAT. 2-TAIL SIG.

C 3.3100845 0.5307867 6.2361856 0.000

JOBACC 0.3139732 0.0759201 4.1355730 0.000

JOBAUT 0.1674370 0.0601753 2.7824856 0.007

JOBPRE 0.3000337 0.0755°1:0 -3.9689186 0.000

JOBSTD 0.11901 .0642 1.8517381 0.068

TASKVA -0.1816158 0.0883979 -2.0545269 0.043

R-Squared 0.471960 Mean of Dependent Var. Adjusted R-Squared 0.442294 S.D. of Dependent Var. S.E. of Regression 0.283360 F-Statistic 15.90954

Sum of Squared Resid. Log Likelihood

4.333041 0.379434 7.146061

-11.90167

LEGEND

C Constant WORKMO Work Motivation JOBACC Job Accountability JOBAUT Job Authority JOBPRE Job Pressure JOBSTD Job Standardization TASKVA Task Variability

Here again the pattern we have observed repeatedly in the analysis of individual responses in the previous sections reappear. The job accountability, the job authority and the job pressure, all elements of Job Autonomy, are related to the work motivation; the first two positively and the last one negatively. It is also interesting to note that the job standardization is positively related to the work motivation. We also find that as in the analysis of individual responses, the task variability is negatively related to the work motivation.

What emerges here is that in NIA officials could be motivated by providing a clear definition of work roles and rules and also by enlarging accountability, responsibility and authority of job incumbents. The respondents on the other hand view negatively the job pressure and task variability.

125

We should conclude that while the positive relationship between the work motivation and Job Autonomy factors such as the job accountability and the job authority goes in accordance with the expectations of the job design theory, the fact that less standardized work rules and more changing work assignments or tasks will lessen the motivation of job incumbents is probably peculiar to the NIA and the national culture of the Philippines. The bureaucratic traditions of the NIA as well as the Filip:ino's preference for more defined and ordered social relationships probably is largely responsible for this pattern of relationship.

Questions Raised and Implications

One of the persistent observations we have made is that the low level of job satisfaction exists for some aspects such as pay and career potential in the whole organization and for all aspects of job satisfaction and motivation in some sectors. It is noted that the Job Satisfaction index with regard to the job and the co-workers is satisfactory, the scores for satisfaction with pay and career potentials are found to be very low in the whole organization. We even noted that 42 percent of the time, on the average, employees are thinking about quitting their jobs. This factor is something to be concerned about though the phenomenon may have been common to all government enterprises in the Philippines. More worrisome will be the evidence that the engineering and technical personnel and also the middle level managers which includes PIOs and Systems managers have the lowest level of the Job Satisfaction. In addition, the Job Motivation, engine of performance and productivity in any organization, tends to be low as one goes down the ladder of occupation. Why are not all people in the organization fairly equally motivated? These are the questions the management would have to address.

Another important observation we have made is the importance of supervisory relationship including use of authority, feedback from supervisor and peers, the feedback from the job and the reward and sanction in promoting motivation and job satisfaction. Those organizations which score high on these scales also score high on motivation and job satisfaction. These identify the slack on potential areas which the management must pay attention to if the productivity in the NIA has to be pushed to its desirable heights or if the low productive units are to be improved. These findings also confirm what we have noted in the previous Chapter on Organizational Analysis regarding these variables.

The strong indication that work motivation is positively related to the Job Autonomy factors such as job accountability and job authority and negatively to, the degree of job standardization and task variability provides very useful information for the possible re-design of jobs in NIA.

126

This Report will be used as a basis in making plans for improving organizational arrangements and training. The Report has unearthed, at least partially, what makes the NIA employees tick. In addition, the use of type of analysis as a diagnostic tool is illustrated here but the use of this as an on-going bio-feedback mechanism may even be more productive. Further explorations are suggested.

127