Job Enrichment

By Peter Mione

"You know that retaining experienced employees is a key factor in our continued success, yet I see us losing more and more of our long-standing account managers. Our survey shows they are bored with their jobs. I want a quick motivational training program for all employees starting in a week. Let's make sure this doesn't continue to happen!"

"We want to make sure we hang on to our top performing service representatives. I want you to put together an hour presentation showing them the options for advancement in our company. We can't afford to lose these people to the competition."

As with so many similar requests, analysis will most likely show that a training solution would not be very effective for either of the above scenarios. If the root causes of the scenarios are truly related to boredom and lack of preparation for advancement, job enrichment could be an excellent non-training intervention.

Job enrichment is a type of job redesign intended to reverse the effects of tasks that are repetitive requiring little autonomy. Some of these effects are boredom, lack of flexibility, and employee dissatisfaction (Leach & Wall, 2004). The underlying principle is to expand the scope of the job with a greater variety of tasks, vertical in nature, that require self-sufficiency. Since the goal is to give the individual exposure to tasks normally reserved for differently focused or higher positions, merely adding more of the same responsibilities related to an employee's current position is not considered job enrichment.

The basis for job enrichment practices is the work done by Frederick Herzberg in the 1950's and 60's, which was further refined in 1975 by Hackman and Oldham using what they called the Job Characteristics Model. This model assumes that if five core job characteristics are present, three psychological states critical to motivation are produced, resulting in positive outcomes (Kotila, 2001). Figure 1 illustrates this model.

Job enrichment can only be truly successful if planning includes support for all phases of the initiative. Ohio State University Extension began a job enrichment program in 1992 and surveyed the participants five years later. The results, broken down into 3 sub-buckets of data beyond the main grouping of advantages/disadvantages as shown in Table 1, indicate the University had not fully considered the planning and administrative aspects of the program (Fourman and Jones, 1997). While the benefits are seemingly obvious, programs fail not

because of a lack of benefits, but rather due to implementation problems. These problems can include a perception of too great a cost, lack of long-term commitment of resources, and potential job classification changes (Cunningham and Eberle, 1990).

In order for a job enrichment program to produce positive results, worker needs and organizational needs must be analyzed and acted upon. According to Cunningham and Eberle (1990), before an enrichment program is begun, the following questions should be asked:

Do employees need jobs that involve responsibility, variety, feedback, challenge, accountability, significance, and opportunities to learn?

What techniques can be implemented without changing the job classification plan?

What techniques would require changes in the job classification plan? (p.3)

When asked about the successes of a Training Generalist job enrichment program begun in 2002, Karen Keenan, Learning Manager with Bank of America, stated the accomplishments were, "greater than expected". The Training Generalist program has resulted in three successful participants to date. According to Ms. Keenan, positive results can be directly tied to a program that addressed the strategic goal of greater resource flexibility without adding to staff, as well as to proper planning, guidance, and feedback for the participants. Having a voluntary program contributed as well, attracting a high caliber of individuals eager to expand their skills and be positioned for advancement. To date, all three Training Generalists have experienced promotions and additional recognition while affording Ms. Keenan's team financial results and workload flexibility it could not have otherwise achieved.

A job enrichment program can be a very effective intervention in some situations where a Performance Technician is faced with a request for motivational training. Ralph Brown (2004) summed it up very nicely:

Job enrichment doesn't work for everyone. Some people are very resistant to more responsibility or to opportunities for personal growth, but…researchers report that some people they expected to resist, seized the opportunity. Enriching jobs is a particularly effective way to develop employees provided the jobs are truly enriched, not just more work for them to do.

References

Brown, R. (n.d.). Design Jobs that motivate and develop people. Retrieved February 14, 2004, from http://www.media-associates.co.nz/fjobdesign.html.

Cunningham, J. B., & Eberle, T. (1990). A guide to job enrichment and redesign. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from http://faculty.washington.edu/~janegf/jeguide.pdf.

Drez, J.(1999). Chapter seven motivation through needs, job design, and satisfaction, slide

20. Retrieved February 14, 2004, from

http://www.siu.edu/departments/cola/psych/psyc323/chat07/index.htm.

Fourman, L.S. & Jones, J. (1997, October). Job enrichment in extension. Journal of Extension, 35, Number 5. Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/iw1.html.

Kotila, O. (2001). Job enrichment. Retrieved February 8, 2004 from http://academic.emporia.edu/smithwil/001fmg456/eja/kotila456.html.

Leach, D. & Wall, T. (n.d.). What is? Job design. Retrieved February 10, 2004 from http://www.shef.ac.uk/~iwp/publications/whatis/job_design.pdf.

Job Design

By Roberto Encarnación

Introduction

Organization is the strength of any business. The more organized and efficient the different components in the business are, the better it functions and produces. Breaking down tasks associated with each component in the system has led to the concept of job design. Job design came about with rapid technological advancements at the turn of the 20th century when mass production and assembly line operations emerged. As jobs continue to become more sophisticated and specialized, the need for an educated and motivated workforce has become indispensable.

Job Design

The main purpose of job design (or re-design) is to increase both employee motivation and productivity (Rush, 1971). Increased productivity can manifest itself in various forms. For example, the focus can be that of improving quality and quantity of goods and services, reduce operation costs, and/or reduce turnover and training costs.

On the other hand, increasing employees' motivation can be achieved through increased job satisfaction. To this end, the Two-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg (1971, as cited in Rush) describes two sets of factors, satisfying and dissatisfying, that affect an employee's self-esteem and opportunity for self-actualization in the workplace (See Table 1).

Herzberg (1966) made a critical distinction between these factors in that a person does not move in a continuum from being dissatisfied to becoming satisfied or vice versa. Rush (1971, p. 7) tries to explain Herzberg's point by stating that, "the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but no satisfaction; and that the opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction but no dissatisfaction". In a practical sense,

this means that dissatisfying factors help support and maintain the structure of the job, while the satisfying factors help the employee reach self-actualization and can increase motivation to continue to do the job.

Methods of Job Design

The performance technologist has at his or her disposal four methods of job design. The first, job enlargement, can be used to increase motivation by giving employee's more and varied tasks. Tasks that reduce the amount of specialization required by the employee, as well as, extending the length of time he or she has to complete them. The second, job rotation, allows an employee to work in different departments or jobs in an organization to gain better insight into operations. This, in itself, does not modify or redesigns the employee's job, but allows the opportunity to increase his/her skills and knowledge about other jobs.

Job enrichment, the third method, allows the employee to take on some responsibilities normally delegated to management. The risk here is that the employee would be transferred too much responsibility and autonomy in the planning and control aspects of the job. Done right, however, the newfound control would invigorate the employee to work more effectively. Lastly, work simplification is the analysis of a job's most basic components to restructure or redesign them to make the job more efficient.

Robertson and Smith (1985) recommend the following strategy for analyzing existing jobs:

Step one: Review the literature and other extant data (training manual, old job descriptions, etc.),

Step two: Ask immediate managers about responsibilities and tasks required to do the job well,

Step three: Ask similar questions to the current employee doing the job,

Step Four: Observe an employee who does the job well,

Step Five: Try to do the job yourself, careful to not attempt jobs that are very dangerous and that are done by employees with prolonged experience, and

Step Six: Write a job description detailing all your findings.

Additional aspects to consider when analyzing and (re)designing a job are the policies, incentives, and feedback that inevitably affect the efficiency and motivation of the employee responsible to the job.

In The Field

Brock Allen, Ph D., director for the Center of Teaching and Learning at San Diego State University (SDSU), places job-design analysis in an educational context. If the analysis is done to better understand the responsibilities of professors as teachers (and not as researchers, for example), he suggests asking questions such as: How do professors 1) understand their job description? 2) manage a course? and 3) become and are held accountable for student learning?

The first question, steps one and three in Robertson and Smith's list, seeks to understand if there is alignment between the job description and what professors are actually doing. Question two, steps two and three, can be addressed to both managers and professors to determine the different methodologies and strategies that are used to teach effectively. The last question, steps one and two, is asked to try and compare how the extant literature, in this case-teaching standards, and the managers help identify indicators of effective teaching.

From the K-12 perspective, David Honda, Math Administrator at Marshall Middle School in the San Diego City Schools (SDSU) district, discusses how incentives play a role in teacher motivation. For example, the district awards teachers at the end of the year for having perfect attendance with a bonus, which does not seem to be tied to awarding teachers for their effectiveness or quality of teaching. Another incentive, one that does tie into teacher effectiveness, is that of offering courses for teachers to learn new teaching strategies, as well as, earn credit to be used toward moving up on the pay scale. Overall, he agrees, most teachers enter the profession for idealistic reasons and tend to be highly motivated to do exceptionally well once they are in the classroom.

Conclusion

Job design serves to improve performance and motivation. Job-design analysis starts by looking at a job with a broad perspective and swiftly moves toward identifying the specific activities required to do the job. This is done for the purpose of identifying and correcting any deficiencies that affect performance and motivation.

References

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.

Robertson, I. & Smith, M. (1985). Motivation and job design: Theory, research, and practice. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.

Rush, H. (1971). Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. New York: The Conference Board.

10. Job Design

Job Design OverviewInteresting, motivating, and meaningful are words used to describe a job that is well designed and more appealing to the person performing the task (Redmond, 2010). These jobs often supply employees with a high level of satisfaction, often translating into a productive work-force that meets business goals (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005). Haphazardly designed jobs that lack adequate attention to the needs of the workers, or any relevant design at all, can sometimes be described as nothing more than "arbitrary groupings of activities" (Campion & Thayer, 1987, p. 78). 

"Changing jobs to be more meaningful and satisfying to employees could be an important source of motivation and job satisfaction" (Redmond, 2010, p. 2). Originally focused on job simplification, job design involved standardizing tasks and placing people into specialized roles (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn 2004). Eventually, the focus shifted to combining how people relate to their jobs, along with how job content works to intrinsically motivate a person to achieve the goal of satisfaction. Two predominate theories have resulted from the work on this approach to motivation. The first, developed by Frederick Herzberg, addressed the design of individual jobs as a two-factor theory, with the main premise being that motivation comes from the nature of the job itself, not from situations experienced on the job or external rewards (Garg & Rastogi, 2006) (Redmond, 2010). Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed the second theory known as the Job Characteristics Theory, which focused primarily on the content and nature of the tasks.

Herzberg's Two-factor TheoryFrederick Herzberg developed the two-factor theory, also known as the motivation-hygiene theory, based on the idea that two factors are involved when it comes to job motivation. The two factors involve extrinsic, or "hygiene" factors and intrinsic motivators and how they correlate to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Herzberg believed that hygiene factors such as company policies, working conditions, and compensation did not serve to motivate individuals, but could cause dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1974). The intrinsic motivators, according to Herzberg, included areas such as interesting work, recognition, and personal growth, which could enhance employee motivation if these factors were properly developed causing satisfaction. Below is a table that shows the top factors to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The table demonstrates that factors leading to one do not lead to the other. Herzberg reasoned that the feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite of each other. Therefore, if dissatisfaction exists as a result of hygiene factors, then there can be no motivation. 

 

Herzberg suggests that management needs to focus on reestablishing work so motivators are able to work. This can be done through job enlargement, job rotation, and job enrichment:

General Characteristics of Herzberg’s Theory

1.   Direct Feedback– Immediate knowledge of the results that an employee is achieving. Ex.) highway patrolman catching a speeding motorist.

2.   Client Relationships– An employee with an “enriched” job receives direct feedback. Ex.) hairstylists; relationship managers; sales positions.

3.   New Learning– An “enriched” job allows the employee to grow psychologically. Ex.) skill variety enables the employee to learn and use more skills or knowledge.

4.   Scheduling– Employees have the freedom to schedule some part of their own work. Ex.) whether to work 8 hours straight with no lunch or work 9 hours and take an hour lunch.

5.   Unique Experience– Qualities or features that are unique. Ex.) custodian given the opportunity to repair building damage.

6.   Control Over Resources– Employees may have their own budgets to order supplies, etc. Ex.) nurse ordering medical supplies.

7.   Direct Communication Authority– Communicate directly with people who use his or her output. Ex.)  an employee reporting directly to quality control.

8.   Personal Accountability– An employee is accountable for his results. Ex.) employees are responsible for meeting their deadlines.

Job Characteristics TheoryIn 1976, Hackman and Oldham developed the Job Characteristics Theory, which took the idea of intrinsic motivation further by defining psychological states that must be present in order for workers to be motivated. These states are dependent upon the characteristics of the job and are moderated by an individual’s internal desire for growth (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). The job characteristics theory suggests that employees may be more internally motivated, satisfied with their overall job and personal growth opportunities, generate high quality work, and have a lower absence and/or turnover when all are followed by a well-developed job design, which should, in return, result in positive work outcomes. The theory was originally intended as a way to evaluate jobs to see if they should be redesigned to increase employee motivation and production. After creation of the theory, a relationship between job characteristics and the employee's motivation was found. The job characteristics theory has three primary components: core job dimensions, critical psychological states, and work outcomes, with each of the components working together to influence employee motivation.

Core Job Dimensions - There are five core job dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback. Skill variety refers to the number of different skills a specific job requires. Task Identity is the extent to which a job requires completing the whole process from beginning to end. Task significance refers to how important a job is and its impact on others. Autonomy is the level of choice, freedom, and independence employees have to do their jobs. Job feedback is the direct and clear information received by the employee regarding the effectiveness of their performance.

Critical Psychological States - There are three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge. Experienced meaningfulness is the extent to which the employee feels his job is important.  The core dimensions, skill variety, task identity and task significance, are all areas that determine the meaningfulness of the job. Experienced responsibility is the degree of personal accountability a person has for their work outcomes. This would lead to a feeling of autonomy. Knowledge refers to how well a person believes they are performing on the job, which may be influenced by the job feedback an employee receives regarding their performance.

Work Outcomes - To measure work outcomes, Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed what they termed the Motivational Potential Score (MPS), which suggests that by measuring the elements from the core job dimensions and critical psychological states, one may be able to predict the potential for motivating a person. MPS is a summary index of a job's potential for motivating a person using the five core dimensions (Smith & Hitt, 2005). Skill variety, task identity, and task significance all contribute to a sense of meaningfulness. Autonomy gives the jobholder a sense of responsibility and feedback satisfies the need for knowledge. A score of 0 on any one of the characteristics results in an overall motivational score of 0. Scores above 0 will vary by the individuals rating the job.

Hackman and Oldham developed the following equation to determine a person's MPS:

MPS = [(Skill Variety + Task Significance + Task Identity)/3] * Autonomy * Feedback

The figure below, the Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation, illustrates the relationships of the three primary components and how each corresponds to employee motivation (Campion & Thayer, 1987).

         

Graphic of Job Characteristics Model of Work Motivation is from Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of the theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 25-279 as cited in Redmond (2010)

Job characteristics theory predicts attitudes and behavior based on the reactions of job incumbents to their tasks. The impact of a job on a person is moderated by a person's needs(Oldham, 1976; Oldham et al., 1976). According to Hackman and Oldham (1980), if certain characteristics are present in a job, jobholders will be internally motivated to

perform wellbecause certain needs will be met. This sequence is explicit in Hackman and Oldham's (1980)explanation of the 'motivating potential' of jobs. Increasing the motivating potential signifies the degree to which jobs are 'enriched' in that they provide for the fulfillment of growth needs (Gardner and Cummings, 1988). Growth needs, in turn, focus on the development of human potential and the desire for personal growth and increased competence (Alderfer,1972).

Five core job characteristics define the motivating potential of a job: skill variety, task identity, task significance, task autonomy, and task feedback. Skill variety is the opportunity to use numerous and varied skills in one's personal repertoire to perform the work. Task identity is the degree to which the job requires the completion of a whole, recognizable piece of work. Task significance is the degree to which a job affects the lives of other people. Task autonomy is the extent to which the job provides individual discretion relating to the work process.Task feedback is the well-defined opportunity to know how effectively one is performingdirectly from the job itself.

Research on Job DesignHerzberg's Two-factor Theory

An empirical test was conducted to research the validity of the two-factor theory that resulted in helping uphold any debate centered on the theory (Ewen, Hulin, Locke, & Smith, 1966). The empirical test assessed multiple hypotheses using a sample of 793 male employees from diverse work backgrounds. Motivators (intrinsic variable) were the work itself and promotions, whereas the hygiene (extrinsic variable) was salary. The intrinsic variables were referred to as “satisfiers” and the extrinsic one was referenced to as the “dissatisfier.” The study implemented the use of the JDI, Job Descriptive Index, to measure job satisfaction precisely.  This instrument was developed at Cornell University and according to Ewen et al. (1966) is a well-constructed and reliable tool to measure job satisfaction. 

The consensus of the test revealed that the satisfiers demonstrate a stronger correlation to both overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction than the dissatisfier. The results of this empirical study also strongly imply that discontented feelings towards intrinsic variables produce general dissatisfaction. However, the participants that were neutral towards intrinsic variables were discovered to be generally more satisfied then the malcontent. These remarkable outcomes were consistent with each hypothesis tested. These results don’t lean towards one theory; instead the data are medians of both. Essentially, the results prove aspects of one theory while simultaneously disproving components of another. This experiment was designed using only three factors that influenced job satisfaction which left out many factors that could have impacted results. There were some other limitations in this study, but evidence justifies that overall, satisfiers remain the most significant source of job satisfaction. The dissatisfier was found to be dependent upon how content the participant was with the satisfier. The results of the

empirical test consisted of data that did not uphold the Herzberg two-factor theory, as well as the one-dimensional traditional theory of job satisfaction (Ewen, Hulin, Locke, & Smith, 1966).

Nathan King (1970) presents a study comparing five versions of the theory that he states have been offered by other researchers in their attempts to define Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. The author attempts to explain and evaluate these versions of the theory with the goal of offering a solid definition. Each version carries a different balance of motivators and hygienes, but all offer the idea that the combination of the two is what determines motivation. In the end, the study exposed the limits of current empirical data on the theory as well as holes in the research that exist. In addition, King discovered that not all versions could be supported empirically, and that further investigation was needed to determine a true working definition of the two factor theory.

A recent empirical study was published concerning the two-factor theory and how it influenced job motivation for seasonal hotel and tourism workers. The study itself was strongly steered by the peaking demands of work at different times of the year (Kennedy, 1999). The researchers questioned whether motivation increases or decreases based on the type of season and also what the factors that influenced job motivation were. According to this study, Herzberg proposed that humans have two sets of needs and our work satisfaction and dissatisfaction depend on whether those needs are met (Lundberg, Gudmundson, & Andersson, 2008). The results of this study confirmed that work motivation is in fact driven by the satisfaction of our higher needs and not by our mundane needs. According to this study, if employers want employees to have higher work motivation, then they must give more responsibility and feedback to all employees.

Another study conducted by Parsons and Broadbride (2006) also confirmed the two-factor theory and its effect on motivation. This study focused on work motivation in a retail setting. The researchers were theorizing whether extrinsic or intrinsic factors increased work motivation and if so, which one increased it the most. What the researcher found was that intrinsic factors such as responsibility, self-development, and personal recognition increased job satisfaction and work motivation. They also found that extrinsic factors decrease employee's job satisfaction.

Job Characteristics Theory

The job characteristics theory had more research conducted with greater support for it. In their own studies, Hackman and Oldham (1976) defined which work characteristics produce more satisfied workers in job situations. The five characteristics are: autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback from the job. According to the theory, these five components boost positive behavioral and attitudinal outcomes while lessening chances of negative ones. As a result of these changes, people should become more motivated and therefore improve work performance (Greasley, 2009). Another study, conducted by Fried and Ferris (1987), discovered during a meta-analytic examination that those five characteristics possessed a strong correlation to job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation. However, these five traits showed a poor relationship to job performance and absenteeism.

Humphrey, Nahrgang, and Morgeson (2007) conducted a research study attempting to prove whether the five characteristics truly show a relationship with all characteristics suggested by the theory. The authors used the Schmidt--Hunter Psychometric Meta-analysis method (2004) in the

study as a way to prevent inaccurate results. The study reviewed more than 250 studies and nearly 250,000 participants confirming that job design is integral to worker motivation. Although there was definitive evidence of differing levels of affect each of these characteristics has on worker motivation, the end result still confirms the theory created by Hackman and Oldham; that each of these components has a legitimate and real affect.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Job Design TheoryHerzberg's Two-factor Theory

Herzberg's Two-Factor theory provided awareness that job design can impact employee satisfaction and motivation and laid the ground work for job characteristics theory. Herzberg's theory is evidenced through anecdotal support. (Northouse, 2010).

There are multiple weaknesses with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. There are no tangible measures for hygiene and motivation factors (Northouse, 2010). When reviewing a collaboration of studies, Michelle Jones' research shows a very weak relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Workers may have "cognitive satisfaction" because their hygiene needs are being met, but they still are not motivated at their jobs (Bright, 2008, p.7). Herzberg's study (which had the highest positive results for the theory) has been criticized because the methodology was not scientifically sound (Northouse, 2010). Additionally, the study made the assumption that all employees want the same outcomes (Locke, 1976). This assumption discounted individual differences and goals. In fact, there is little support for Herzberg's two-factor theory and it is considered invalid by the majority of organizational scholars (Locke & Henne, 1986)

Job Characteristics Theory

Job Characteristics Theory improves upon Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory (Northouse, 2010). It has been studied extensively, has tangible measures, and high physiological scores were achieved (Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). As reported by Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, there was an average correlation of .40 between core job dimensions scores and reported job satisfaction (1985).

The main weakness of the Job Characteristics Theory is the correlational data. While correlations can be informative, it can also be misleading. Correlation does not show causation. The Job Characteristics Theory was conducted within a short time frame instead of using long term data (Griffin, 1991). It also does not take cultural differences into consideration and the outcomes would likely not be the same across different cultures (Pearson & Chong, 1997).  

Application of Job Design in the WorkplaceThere are several ways to implement job design in the workplace. Campion and Thayer (1987) offer four individual ways approaches; mechanistic, motivational, biological, and perceptual/motor. Each is designed to focus on different characteristics of a job thereby producing different outcomes, costs, and benefits when used to redesign a job. 

Table based on job design approaches from Campion, M., & Thayer, P. (1987). Job design: Approaches, Outcomes, and Trade-offs. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 66-79.

Theories at Work

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory:

Janitorial positions can be enriched by allowing employees to order their own cleaning supplies. This is a task that was normally done by the manager, but by passing it to the employee he/she may feel an increase in job satisfaction. Also, allowing the janitor to create his/her own work schedule increases the autonomy of the job (Redmond, 2010).

In the past, the duties of secretarial positions included running errands for your supervisor, answering phones, scheduling appointments, and passing along messages. Secretarial positions have been enriched by allowing secretaries to take care of accounting and finances, sitting in on meetings, and dealing with human resource issues (Redmond, 2010).

Job Characteristics Theory:

Assemblers on an assembly line are required to stand or sit in constant position for significant periods of time engaging in repetitive, monotonous motions. To enrich these jobs, employers may implement a rotating assembly schedule to allow the employees to complete several different tasks during a scheduled work day.

Satisfactory and Dis-satisfactory Factors

The main purpose of job design (or re-design) is to increase both employee motivation and productivity (Rush, 1971). Increased productivity can manifest itself in various forms. For example, the focus can be that of improving quality and quantity of goods and services, reduce operation costs, and/or reduce turnover and training costs.  On the other hand, increasing employees' motivation can be achieved through increased job satisfaction. To this end, the Two-Hygiene Theory by Herzberg (1971, as cited in Rush) describes two sets of factors, satisfying and dissatisfying, that affect an employee's self-esteem and opportunity for self-actualization in the workplace. Examples of these are seen below:

Dis-satisfactory Factors

1. Administrative Policies2. Supervision3. Working Conditions4. Interpersonal Relations5. Salary6. Statistics7. Job Security8. Personal Life

Satisfactory Factors

1. Achievement2. Recognition3. Work itself4. Responsibilities5. Advancement6. Growth

Job Design and Generational DifferencesA significant increase in the longevity of humans, coupled with a decrease in birth rates, has created concern regarding job design and how it can be constructed to fit multiple generations working side by side with substantially different ideals (Grant, Fried, Parker, & Frese, 2010). While popular media outlets have made claims that the Millennials, also known as Generation Y, hold fundamentally different values than the preceding generations, few empirical studies have been conducted to properly examine the differences they may have with regard to work motivations (Grant et al., 2010). This makes it increasingly difficult to draw conclusions pertaining to job design and how it may need to be adapted to fit a blended work-force (Grant et al., 2010). Because differences in age and experience creates cohorts that are confounded, designing a proper study is challenging (Grant et al., 2010).

Twenge (2006) suggests that Millennials are less concerned with acquiring social approval than previous generations and more likely to be characterized by higher levels of self-esteem, narcissism, assertiveness, and the belief that outcomes of events are controlled by external circumstances, which may discourage taking initiative and proactive thinking (Grant et al., 2010). With respect to job design, this raises concern of whether Millennials will be more likely to expect praise and reject criticism when given interpersonal feedback, or if they will be more comfortable negotiating ideals and taking initiative in crafting their jobs, but less likely to do it in a way that meets with organizational goals (Grant et al., 2010).

The higher proportion of elderly workers who have chosen to remain employed and the retired who have chosen to return to work has raised additional questions regarding job design and how the generations will be able to work together (Grant et al., 2010). Will they be inclined to pursue more peripheral jobs that allow them a greater degree of family and leisure time, or will they be interested in competing with a younger generation that is motivated by the more demanding jobs (Grant et al., 2010)? It remains to be seen whether the motivation of the older generations to continue working will be determined by task significance, meaningful contribution, or possibly both and whether all generations can effectively work together under the same job design or if designs will need to be altered (Grant et al., 2010).

ReferencesBright, J. (2008, March 1). Power to the people; The ladder. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 7.

Campion, M., & Thayer, P. (1987). Job design: Approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs. Organizational Dynamics, 15, 66-79.

Employee Motivation, the Organizational Environment and Productivity. (2008). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from ACCEL Team Development: http://www.accel-team.com/work_design/wd_02.html

Ewen, R., Hulin, C., Locke, E., & Smith, P. (1966). An empirical test of yhe Herzberg two-factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 1332-1356.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-332.

Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). New model of job design: motivating employees' performance. The Journal of Management Development, 25(6), 572-587.

Grant, A.M., Fried, Y., Parker, S.K., & Frese, M. (2010). Putting job designin context: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 145-157.

Greasley, A. (2009). Operations management (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 425-435.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29.

Humphreys, S., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.

Individual Learning Strategies. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2009, from Human Technology: http://www.humtech.com/opm/grtl/ILS/ils1.cfm

Kennedy, E. (1999). Seasonality in Irish tourism, 1973-1995. Tourism Economoics - The Business and Finance of Tourism and Recreation, 5(1), 25-47.

King, N. (1970). Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 18-31.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Locke, E. A., & Henne, D. (1986). Work motivation theories. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1-35). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289.

Lundberg, C., Gudmundson, A., & Andersson, T. D. (2008). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of work motivation tested empirically on seasonal workers in hospitality and tourism. Tourism Management, 30, 890-899.

Nourthouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Parsons, E., & Broadbride, A. (2006). Job motivation and satisfaction: Unpacking the key factors for charity shop managers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 13(2), 121-131.

Pearson, C. A., & Chong, J. (1997). Contributions of job content and social information on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: An exploration in a Malaysian nursing context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 357-374.

Redmond, B. F. (2010). Job Design: Do I find my work interesting and challenging? Work Attitudes and Motivation. The Pennsylvania State University World Campus

Rush, H. (1971). Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. New York: The Conference Board.

Smith, K. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2005). Great minds in management: The process of theory development. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G. & Osborn, R. N. (2005). Organizational Behavior (9th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation me: Why today's young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press