chapter 15 job and team design - purdue university

Salvendy c15.tex V1 - 09/22/2011 9:52 P.M. Page 441

CHAPTER 15JOB AND TEAM DESIGN

Frederick P. MorgesonThe Eli Broad Graduate School of ManagementMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing, Michigan

Michael A. CampionKrannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana

Patrick F. BruningKrannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana

1 INTRODUCTION 441

1.1 Job Design 441

1.2 Team Design 442

2 JOB DESIGN APPROACHES 442

2.1 Mechanistic Job Design Approach 443

2.2 Motivational Job Design Approach 443

2.3 Perceptual/Motor Job Design Approach 450

2.4 Biological Job Design Approach 450

3 TEAM DESIGN APPROACH 451

3.1 Historical Development 451

3.2 Design Recommendations 451

3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages 452

4 IMPLEMENTATION ADVICE FOR JOBAND TEAM DESIGN 457

4.1 General Implementation Advice 457

4.2 Implementation Advice for Job Designand Redesign 459

4.3 Implementation Advice for Team Design 462

5 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATIONOF JOB AND TEAM DESIGN 465

5.1 Using Questionnaires to Measure Joband Team Design 465

5.2 Choosing Sources of Data 466

5.3 Long-Term Effects and Potential Biases 467

5.4 Job Analysis 467

5.5 Other Approaches 468

5.6 Example of an Evaluation of a Job Design 468

5.7 Example of an Evaluation of a Team Design 469

REFERENCES 469

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Job Design

Job design is an aspect of managing organizations thatis so commonplace it often goes unnoticed. Most peoplerealize the importance of job design when an organi-zation or new plant is starting up, and some recognizethe importance of job design when organizations arerestructuring or changing processes. But fewer peoplerealize that job design may be affected as organizationschange markets or strategies, managers use their discre-tion in the assignment of tasks on a daily basis, peoplein the jobs or their managers change, the workforce orlabor markets change, or there are performance, safety,

or satisfaction problems. Fewer yet realize that jobdesign change can be used as an intervention to enhanceorganizational goals (Campion and Medsker, 1992).

It is clear that many different aspects of an organiza-tion influence job design, especially an organization’sstructure, technology, processes, and environment.These influences are beyond the scope of this chapter,but they are dealt with in other references (e.g., Davis,1982; Davis and Wacker, 1982). These influencesimpose constraints on how jobs are designed and willplay a major role in any practical application. However,it is the assumption of this chapter that considerable dis-cretion exists in the design of jobs in most situations, andthe job (defined as a set of tasks performed by a worker)

441


442 DESIGN OF TASKS AND JOBS

is a convenient unit of analysis in both developing neworganizations or changing existing ones (Campion andMedsker, 1992).

The importance of job design lies in its stronginfluence on a broad range of important efficiency andhuman resource outcomes. Job design has predictableconsequences for outcomes including the following(Campion and Medsker, 1992):

1. Productivity2. Quality3. Job satisfaction4. Training times5. Intrinsic work motivation6. Staffing7. Error rates8. Accident rates9. Mental fatigue

10. Physical fatigue11. Stress12. Mental ability requirements13. Physical ability requirements14. Job involvement15. Absenteeism16. Medical incidents17. Turnover18. Compensation rates

According to Louis Davis, one of the most prolificwriters on job design in the engineering literature overthe last 35 years, many of the personnel and productiv-ity problems in industry may be the direct result of thedesign of jobs (Davis, 1957; Davis et al., 1955; Davisand Taylor, 1979; Davis and Valfer, 1965; Davis andWacker, 1982, 1987). Unfortunately, people mistakenlyview the design of jobs as technologically determinedand inalterable. However, job designs are actually socialinventions. They reflect the values of the era in whichthey were constructed. These values include the eco-nomic goal of minimizing immediate costs (Davis et al.,1955; Taylor, 1979) and theories of human motivation(Steers and Mowday, 1977; Warr and Wall, 1975). Thesevalues, and the designs they influence, are not immu-table givens but are subject to modification (Campionand Medsker, 1992; Campion and Thayer, 1985).

The question then becomes: What is the best way todesign a job? In fact, there is no single best way. Thereare several major approaches to job design, each derivedfrom a different discipline and reflecting different the-oretical orientations and values. This chapter describesthese approaches, their costs and benefits, and tools andprocedures for developing and assessing jobs in all typesof organizations. It highlights trade-offs which must bemade when choosing among different approaches to jobdesign. This chapter also compares the design of jobsfor individuals working independently to the design ofwork for teams, which is an alternative to designingjobs at the level of individual workers. This chapter

presents the advantages and disadvantages of designingwork around individuals compared to designing workfor teams and provides advice on implementing andevaluating the different work design approaches.

1.2 Team Design

The major approaches to job design typically focus ondesigning jobs for individual workers. However, theapproach to work design at the level of the group orteam, rather than at the level of individual workers, isgaining substantially in popularity, and many U.S. orga-nizations are experimenting with teams (Guzzo andShea, 1992; Hoerr, 1989). New manufacturing systems(e.g., flexible, cellular) and advancements in our under-standing of team processes not only allow designers toconsider the use of work teams but often seem to encour-age the use of team approaches (Gallagher and Knight,1986; Majchrzak, 1988).

In designing jobs for teams, one assigns a task orset of tasks to a team of workers, rather than to anindividual, and considers the team to be the primaryunit of performance. Objectives and rewards focus onteam, not individual, behavior. Depending on the natureof its tasks, a team’s workers may be performing thesame tasks simultaneously or they may break tasks intosubtasks to be performed by individuals within the team.Subtasks can be assigned on the basis of expertise orinterest, or team members might rotate from one subtaskto another to provide variety and increase breadth ofskills and flexibility in the workforce (Campion andMedsker, 1992; Campion et al., 1994b).

Some tasks are of a size or complexity or otherwiseseem to naturally fit into a team job design, whereasothers may seem to be appropriate only at the individualjob level. In many cases, though, there may be a consid-erable degree of choice regarding whether one organizeswork around teams or individuals. In such situations,the designer should consider advantages and disadvan-tages of the use of the job and team design approacheswith respect to an organization’s goals, policies,technologies, and constraints (Campion et al., 1993).

2 JOB DESIGN APPROACHES

This chapter adopts an interdisciplinary perspective onjob design. Interdisciplinary research on job design hasshown that different approaches to job design exist.Each is oriented toward a particular subset of outcomes,each has disadvantages as well as advantages, and trade-offs among approaches are required in most job designsituations (Campion, 1988, 1989; Campion and Berger,1990; Campion and McClelland, 1991, 1993; Campionand Thayer, 1985; Edwards et al., 1999, 2000; Morgesonand Campion, 2002, 2003).

While not new, contemporary work design research-ers and practitioners have begun to reintegrate socialand contextual aspects of employees’ work with thecharacteristics traditionally studied by job design.These approaches to work design have since led tonew approaches and have become incorporated intonew assessment tools (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006;Morgeson et al., 2010; Humphrey et al., 2007; Grant and


JOB AND TEAM DESIGN 443

Parker, 2009). Building off and integrating the sugges-tions made in Campion’s (1988; Campion and Thayer,1985) interdisciplinary model of job design (MJDQ),the work design questionnaire (WDQ) represents a newtool with which to assess work design (Morgeson andHumphrey, 2006). This measure broadens the scope, dis-cussion, and measurement of job design through the useof three broad categories of work characteristics (moti-vational, social, and work context). The WDQ assessesthe job and its link to the worker’s social and physicalcontext and allows job designers to assess importantyet infrequently studied aspects of work design such asknowledge/ability characteristics and social characteris-tics. A key difference between the MJDQ and WDQ isthe perspective from which the job design is assessed.In the original MJDQ each perspective (mechanistic,motivational, perceptual–motor, and biological) is pro-posed to assess a different set of design principlesintended to create different outcomes and thus appealto a different set of stakeholders (Campion and Thayer,1985). On the other hand, the WDQ aims to include theconcerns of each approach captured in the MJDQ (withmore emphasis on the motivational, perceptual–motor,and biological approaches than the mechanistic ap-proach), along with social and contextual concerns ina single approach to designing better work. Based ona framework developed by Morgeson and Campion(2003), the authors used three categories to integrateaspects of work design (motivational, social, and con-textual). The four major approaches to job design arereviewed below with a discussion of the applicability ofthe WDQ characteristics included. Table 1 summarizesthe job design approaches and Tables 2 and 3 providespecific recommendations according to the MJDQ(Table 2) and the WDQ (Table 3). The team designapproach is reviewed in Section 3.

2.1 Mechanistic Job Design Approach

2.1.1 Historical Development

The historical roots of job design can be traced backto the idea of the division of labor, which was veryimportant to early thinking on the economies of man-ufacturing (Babbage, 1835; Smith, 1776). Division oflabor led to job designs characterized by specializa-tion and simplification. Jobs designed in this fashionhad many advantages, including reduced learning time,saved time from not having to change tasks or tools,increased proficiency from repeating tasks, and devel-opment of specialized tools and equipment.

A very influential person for this perspective wasFrederick Taylor (Hammond, 1971; Taylor, 1911). Heexplicated the principles of scientific management,which encouraged the study of jobs to determine the“one best way” to perform each task. Movements ofskilled workmen were studied using a stopwatch andsimple analysis. The best and quickest methods and toolswere selected, and all workers were trained to performthe job the same way. Standard performance levels wereset, and incentive pay was tied to the standards. Gilbreth(1911) also contributed to this design approach. Withtime-and-motion study, he tried to eliminate wasted

movements by the appropriate design of equipment andplacement of tools and materials.

Surveys of industrial job designers indicate that this“mechanistic” approach to job design has been theprevailing practice throughout this century (Davis et al.,1955; Taylor, 1979). These characteristics are also theprimary focus of many modern-day writers on job design(e.g., Mundel, 1985; Niebel, 1988) and are presentin such newer techniques as lean production (Parker,2003). The discipline base for this approach is early or“classic” industrial engineering.

2.1.2 Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a brief list of statements that de-scribe the essential recommendations of the mechanisticapproach. In essence, jobs should be studied to deter-mine the most efficient work methods and techniques.The total work in an area (e.g., department) should bebroken down into highly specialized jobs assigned todifferent employees. The tasks should be simplified soskill requirements are minimized. There should also berepetition in order to gain improvement from practice.Idle time should be minimized. Finally, activities shouldbe automated or assisted by automation to the extentpossible and economically feasible.

2.1.3 Advantages and Disadvantages

The goal of this approach is to maximize efficiency,in terms of both productivity and utilization of humanresources. Table 1 summarizes some human resourceadvantages and disadvantages that have been observedin research. Jobs designed according to the mechanisticapproach are easier and less expensive to staff. Trainingtimes are reduced. Compensation requirements may beless because skill and responsibility are reduced. Andbecause mental demands are less, errors may be lesscommon. Disadvantages include the fact that extremeuse of the mechanistic approach may result in jobsso simple and routine that employees experience lowjob satisfaction and motivation. Overly mechanistic,repetitive work can lead to health problems such asrepetitive-motion disorders.

2.2 Motivational Job Design Approach


Encouraged by the human relations movement of the1930s (Hoppock, 1935; Mayo, 1933), people began topoint out the negative effects of the overuse of mecha-nistic design on worker attitudes and health (Argyris,1964; Blauner, 1964). Overly specialized, simplifiedjobs were found to lead to dissatisfaction (Caplan et al.,1975) and adverse physiological consequences for work-ers (Johansson et al., 1978; Weber et al., 1980). Jobson assembly lines and other machine-paced work wereespecially troublesome in this regard (Salvendy andSmith, 1981; Walker and Guest, 1952). These trends ledto an increasing awareness of employees’ psychologicalneeds.

The first efforts to enhance the meaningfulness ofjobs involved the opposite of specialization. It wasrecommended that tasks be added to jobs, either at the

Salvendy c15.tex V1 - 09/22/2011 9:52 P.M. 44


Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Job Design Approaches

Approach/DisciplineBase References) Recommendations Benefits Costs

Mechanistic/classicindustrial engineering(Gilbreth, 1911; Taylor,1911; Niebel, 1988)

Increase in:• Specialization• Simplification• Repetition• AutomationDecrease in:• Spare time

Decrease in:• Training• Staffing difficulty• Making errors• Mental overload and

fatigue• Mental skills and

abilities• Compensation

Increase in:• Absenteeism• BoredomDecrease in:• Satisfaction• Motivation

Motivational/organizationalpsychology (Hackmanand Oldham, 1980;Herzberg, 1966)

Increase in:• Variety• Autonomy• Significance• Skill usage• Participation• Feedback• Recognition• Growth• Achievement

Increase in:• Satisfaction• Motivation• Involvement• Performance• Customer service• Catching errorsDecrease in:• Absenteeism• Turnover

Increase in:• Training time/cost• Staffing difficulty• Making errors• Mental overload• Stress• Mental skills and

abilities• Compensation

Perceptual-motor/experimentalpsychology, humanfactors (Salvendy,1987; Sanders andMcCormick, 1987)

Increase in:• Lighting quality• Display and control

quality• User-friendly

equipmentDecrease in:• Information-processing

requirements

Decrease in:• Making errors• Accidents• Mental overload• Stress• Training time/cost• Staffing difficulty• Compensation• Mental skills and

abilities

Increase in:• BoredomDecrease in:• Satisfaction

Biological/physiology,biomechanics,ergonomics (Astrandand Rodahl, 1977;Tichauer, 1978;Grandjean, 1980)

Increase in:• Seating comfort• Postural comfortDecrease in:• Strength requirements• Endurance

requirements• Environmental

stressors

Decrease in:• Physical abilities• Physical fatigue• Aches and pains• Medical incidents

Increase in:• Financial cost• Inactivity

Source: Adapted from Campion and Medsker (1992).Note: Advantages and disadvantages based on findings in previous interdisciplinary research (Campion, 1988, 1989;Campion and Berger, 1990; Campion and McClelland, 1991, 1993; Campion and Thayer, 1985). Table adapted fromCampion and Medsker (1992).

same level of responsibility (i.e., job enlargement) or at ahigher level (i.e., job enrichment) (Ford, 1969; Herzberg,1966). This trend expanded into a pursuit of identifyingand validating characteristics of jobs that make themmotivating and satisfying (Griffin, 1982; Hackman andOldham, 1980; Turner and Lawrence, 1965). This ap-proach considers the psychological theories of workmotivation (e.g., Steers and Mowday, 1977; Vroom,1964); thus this “motivational” approach draws primarilyfrom organizational psychology as a discipline base.

A related trend following later in time but somewhatcomparable in content is the sociotechnical approach(Emory and Trist, 1960; Pasmore, 1988; Rousseau,

1977). It focuses not only on the work but alsoon the technology itself and the relationship of theenvironment to work and organizational design. Interestis less on the job and more on roles and systems. Keysto this approach are work system and job designs that fittheir external environment and the joint optimization ofboth social and technical systems in the organization’sinternal environment. Though this approach differssomewhat in that consideration is also given to thetechnical system and external environment, it is similarin that it draws on the same psychological job character-istics that affect satisfaction and motivation. It suggeststhat as organizations’ environments are becoming



Table 2 Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire

(Specific Recommendations from Each Job Design Approach)Instructions: Indicate the extent to which each statement is descriptive of the job using the scale below.Circle answers to the right of each statement.Please use the following scale:

(5) Strongly agree(4) Agree(3) Neither agree nor disagree(2) Disagree(1) Strongly disagree( ) Leave blank if do not know or not applicable

Mechanistic Approach1. Job specialization: The job is highly specialized in terms of purpose, tasks, or activities. 1 2 3 4 52. Specialization of tools and procedures: The tools, procedures, materials, etc., used on this job

are highly specialized in terms of purpose.1 2 3 4 5

3. Task simplification: The tasks are simple and uncomplicated. 1 2 3 4 54. Single activities: The job requires you to do only one task or activity at a time. 1 2 3 4 55. Skill simplification: The job requires relatively little skill and training time. 1 2 3 4 56. Repetition: The job requires performing the same activity(s) repeatedly. 1 2 3 4 57. Spare time: There is very little spare time between activities on this job. 1 2 3 4 58. Automation: Many of the activities of this job are automated or assisted by automation. 1 2 3 4 5

Motivational Approach9. Autonomy: The job allows freedom, independence, or discretion in work scheduling,

sequence, methods, procedures, quality control, or other decision making.1 2 3 4 5

10. Intrinsic job feedback: The work activities themselves provide direct and clear information asto the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of job performance.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Extrinsic job feedback: Other people in the organization, such as managers and co-workers,provide information as to the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of job performance.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Social interaction: The job provides for positive social interaction such as team work orco-worker assistance.

1 2 3 4 5

13. Task/goal clarity: The job duties, requirements, and goals are clear and specific. 1 2 3 4 514. Task variety: The job has a variety of duties, tasks, and activities. 1 2 3 4 515. Task identity: The job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. It gives

you a chance to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end.1 2 3 4 5

16. Ability/skill-level requirements: The job requires a high level of knowledge, skills, and abilities. 1 2 3 4 517. Ability/skill variety: The job requires a variety of knowledge, skills, and abilities. 1 2 3 4 518. Task significance: The job is significant and important compared with other jobs in the

organization.1 2 3 4 5

19. Growth/learning: The job allows opportunities for learning and growth in competence andproficiency.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Promotion: There are opportunities for advancement to higher level jobs. 1 2 3 4 521. Achievement: The job provides for feelings of achievement and task accomplishment. 1 2 3 4 522. Participation: The job allows participation in work-related decision making. 1 2 3 4 523. Communication: The job has access to relevant communication channels and information

flows.1 2 3 4 5

24. Pay adequacy: The pay on this job is adequate compared with the job requirements and withthe pay in similar jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

25. Recognition: The job provides acknowledgment and recognition from others. 1 2 3 4 526. Job security: People on this job have high job security. 1 2 3 4 5

Perceptual/Motor Approach27. Lighting: The lighting in the workplace is adequate and free from glare. 1 2 3 4 528. Displays: The displays, gauges, meters, and computerized equipment on this job are easy to

read and understand.1 2 3 4 5

29. Programs: The programs in the computerized equipment on this job are easy to learn and use. 1 2 3 4 530. Other equipment: The other equipment (all types) used on this job is easy to learn and use. 1 2 3 4 5

(continued overleaf)



Table 2 (continued)

31. Printed job materials: The printed materials used on this job are easy to read and interpret. 1 2 3 4 532. Workplace layout: The workplace is laid out such that you can see and hear well to perform

the job.1 2 3 4 5

33. Information input requirements: The amount of information you must attend to in order toperform this job is fairly minimal.

1 2 3 4 5

34. Information output requirements: The amount of information you must output on this job, interms of both action and communication, is fairly minimal.

1 2 3 4 5

35. Information-processing requirements: The amount of information you must process, in termsof thinking and problem solving, is fairly minimal.

1 2 3 4 5

36. Memory requirements: The amount of information you must remember on this job is fairlyminimal.

1 2 3 4 5

37. Stress: There is relatively little stress on this job. 1 2 3 4 5

Biological Approach38. Strength: The job requires fairly little muscular strength. 1 2 3 4 539. Lifting: The job requires fairly little lifting and/or the lifting is of very light weights. 1 2 3 4 540. Endurance: The job requires fairly little muscular endurance. 1 2 3 4 541. Seating: The seating arrangements on the job are adequate (e.g., ample opportunities to sit,

comfortable chairs, good postural support).1 2 3 4 5

42. Size differences: The workplace allows for all size differences between people in terms ofclearance, reach, eye height, leg room, etc.

1 2 3 4 5

43. Wrist movement: The job allows the wrists to remain straight without excessive movement. 1 2 3 4 544. Noise: The workplace is free from excessive noise. 1 2 3 4 545. Climate: The climate at the workplace is comfortable in terms of temperature and humidity,

and it is free of excessive dust and fumes.1 2 3 4 5

46. Work breaks: There is adequate time for work breaks given the demands of the job. 1 2 3 4 547. Shift work: The job does not require shift work or excessive overtime. 1 2 3 4 5

For jobs with little physical activity due to single work station add:48. Exercise opportunities: During the day, there are enough opportunities to get up from the work

station and walk around.1 2 3 4 5

49. Constraint: While at the work station, the worker is not constrained to a single position. 1 2 3 4 550. Furniture: At the work station, the worker can adjust or arrange the furniture to be comfortable

(e.g., adequate legroom, foot rests if needed, proper keyboard or work surface height).1 2 3 4 5

Source: Table adapted from Campion (1988). See supporting references and related research (e.g., Campion andMcClelland, 1991, 1993; Campion and Thayer, 1985) for reliability and validity information. Scores for each approach arecalculated by averaging applicable items.

increasingly turbulent and complex, organizational andjob design should involve greater flexibility, employeeinvolvement, employee training, and decentralizationof decision making and control, and a reduction inhierarchical structures and the formalization of pro-cedures and relationships (Pasmore, 1988).

Surveys of industrial job designers have consis-tently indicated that the mechanistic approach repre-sents the dominant theme of job design (Davis et al.,1955; Taylor, 1979). Other approaches to job design,such as the motivational approach, have not been givenas much explicit consideration. This is not surpris-ing because the surveys only included job designerstrained in engineering-related disciplines, such as indus-trial engineering and systems analysis. It is not nec-essarily certain that other specialists or line managerswould adopt the same philosophies, especially in recenttimes. Nevertheless, there is evidence that even fairlynaive job designers (i.e., college students in manage-ment classes) also adopt the mechanistic approach in job

design simulations. That is, their strategies for groupingtasks were primarily based on such factors as activ-ities, skills, equipment, procedures, or location. Eventhough the mechanistic approach may be the most nat-ural and intuitive, this research has also revealed thatpeople can be trained to apply all four approaches tojob design (Campion and Stevens, 1991). The moti-vational characteristics of the WDQ are an extensionof this motivational approach to job design. This setof characteristics is based on the idea that high lev-els of these characteristics make work more motivating,satisfying, and enriching. Subcategories of these char-acteristics include task characteristics (task variety, tasksignificance, task identity, and feedback from the job)and knowledge characteristics (job complexity, infor-mation processing, problem solving, skill variety, andspecialization).

Building off of the ideas presented in Morgeson andHumphrey’s WDQ, scholars are beginning to examinethe social aspects of work design and how they interact



Table 3 Work Design Questionnaire

(Specific Recommendations from Each Job Design Approach)Instructions: Indicate the extent to which each statement is descriptive of the job using the scale below.Circle answers to the right of each statement.Please use the following scale:


Task Characteristics

Autonomy/Work Scheduling Autonomy1. The job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work. 1 2 3 4 52. The job allows me to decide on the order in which things are done on the job. 1 2 3 4 53. The job allows me to plan how I do my work. 1 2 3 4 5

Autonomy/Decision-Making Autonomy4. The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work. 1 2 3 4 55. The job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own. 1 2 3 4 56. The job provides me with significant autonomy in making decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

Autonomy/Work Methods Autonomy7. The job allows me to make decisions about what methods I use to complete my work. 1 2 3 4 58. The job gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the

work.1 2 3 4 5

9. The job allows me to decide on my own how to go about doing my work. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Variety10. The job involves a great deal of task variety. 1 2 3 4 511. The job involves doing a number of different things. 1 2 3 4 512. The job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks. 1 2 3 4 513. The job involves performing a variety of tasks. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Significance14. The results of my work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people. 1 2 3 4 515. The job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things. 1 2 3 4 516. The job has a large impact on people outside the organization. 1 2 3 4 517. The work performed on the job has a significant impact on people outside the organization. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Identity18. The job involves completing a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end. 1 2 3 4 519. The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from beginning to end. 1 2 3 4 520. The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces of work I begin. 1 2 3 4 521. The job allows me to complete work I start. 1 2 3 4 5

Feedback from Job22. The work activities themselves provide direct and clear information about the effectiveness

(e.g., quality and quantity) of my job performance.1 2 3 4 5

23. The job itself provides feedback on my performance. 1 2 3 4 524. The job itself provides me with information about my performance. 1 2 3 4 5

Knowledge Characteristics

Job Complexity25. The job requires that I only do one task or activity at a time (reverse scored). 1 2 3 4 526. The tasks on the job are simple and uncomplicated (reverse scored). 1 2 3 4 527. The job comprises relatively uncomplicated tasks (reverse scored). 1 2 3 4 528. The job involves performing relatively simple tasks (reverse scored). 1 2 3 4 5




Table 3 (continued)

Information Processing29. The job requires me to monitor a great deal of information. 1 2 3 4 530. The job requires that I engage in a large amount of thinking. 1 2 3 4 531. The job requires me to keep track of more than one thing at a time. 1 2 3 4 532. The job requires me to analyze a lot of information. 1 2 3 4 5

Problem Solving33. The job involves solving problems that have no obvious correct answer. 1 2 3 4 534. The job requires me to be creative. 1 2 3 4 535. The job often involves dealing with problems that I have not met before. 1 2 3 4 536. The job requires unique ideas or solutions to problems. 1 2 3 4 5

Skill Variety37. The job requires a variety of skills. 1 2 3 4 538. The job requires me to utilize a variety of different skills in order to complete the work. 1 2 3 4 539. The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level skills. 1 2 3 4 540. The job requires the use of a number of skills. 1 2 3 4 5

Specialization41. The job is highly specialized in terms of purpose, tasks, or activities. 1 2 3 4 542. The tools, procedures, materials, and so forth used on this job are highly specialized in

terms of purpose.1 2 3 4 5

43. The job requires very specialized knowledge and skills. 1 2 3 4 544. The job requires a depth of knowledge and expertise. 1 2 3 4 5

Social Characteristics

Social Support45. I have the opportunity to develop close friendships in my job. 1 2 3 4 546. I have the chance in my job to get to know other people. 1 2 3 4 547. I have the opportunity to meet with others in my work. 1 2 3 4 548. My supervisor is concerned about the welfare of the people that work for him/her. 1 2 3 4 549. People I work with take a personal interest in me. 1 2 3 4 550. People I work with are friendly. 1 2 3 4 5

Interdependence/Initiated Interdependence51. The job requires me to accomplish my job before others complete their jobs. 1 2 3 4 552. Other jobs depend directly on my job. 1 2 3 4 553. Unless my job gets done, other jobs cannot be completed. 1 2 3 4 5

Interdependence/Received Interdependence54. The job activities are greatly affected by the work of other people. 1 2 3 4 555. The job depends on the work of many different people for its completion. 1 2 3 4 556. My job cannot be done unless others do their work. 1 2 3 4 5

Interaction Outside Organization57. The job requires spending a great deal of time with people outside my organization. 1 2 3 4 558. The job involves interaction with people who are not members of my organization. 1 2 3 4 559. On the job, I frequently communicate with people who do not work for the same

organization as I do.1 2 3 4 5

60. The job involves a great deal of interaction with people outside my organization. 1 2 3 4 5

Feedback from Others61. I receive a great deal of information from my manager and co-workers about my job

performance.1 2 3 4 5

62. Other people in the organization, such as managers and co-workers, provideinformation about the effectiveness (e.g., quality and quantity) of my job performance.

1 2 3 4 5

63. I receive feedback on my performance from other people in my organization (such asmy manager or co-workers).

1 2 3 4 5




Table 3 (continued)

Work Context

Ergonomics64. The seating arrangements on the job are adequate (e.g., ample opportunities to sit,

comfortable chairs, good postural support).1 2 3 4 5

65. The workplace allows for all size differences between people in terms of clearance,reach, eye height, leg room, etc.

1 2 3 4 5

66. The job involves excessive reaching (reverse scored). 1 2 3 4 5

Physical Demands67. The job requires a great deal of muscular endurance. 1 2 3 4 568. The job requires a great deal of muscular strength. 1 2 3 4 569. The job requires a lot of physical effort. 1 2 3 4 5

Work Conditions70. The workplace is free from excessive noise. 1 2 3 4 571. The climate at the workplace is comfortable in terms of temperature and humidity. 1 2 3 4 572. The job has a low risk of accident. 1 2 3 4 573. The job takes place in an environment free from health hazards (e.g., chemicals, fumes). 1 2 3 4 574. The job occurs in a clean environment. 1 2 3 4 5

Equipment Use75. The job involves the use of a variety of different equipment. 1 2 3 4 576. The job involves the use of complex equipment or technology. 1 2 3 4 577. A lot of time was required to learn the equipment used on the job. 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Table adapted from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). See supporting reference for reliability and validityinformation. Scores for each approach are calculated by averaging applicable items.

with the peoples’ on the job experience (Humphreyet al., 2007; Grant and Parker, 2009; Grant, 2007, 2008).Social characteristics consider the broader social envi-ronment in which the work is done as a component ofworkers’ job experience. Social characteristics includesocial support (broadly refers to the support employ-ees receive from others at work), interdependence (theinterconnections of the tasks, sequencing, and impactof an employee’s job with the jobs of others), interac-tion outside the organization, and feedback from oth-ers. Some of these social characteristics were originallyencompassed within the motivational approach to jobdesign (e.g., interdependence and feedback from oth-ers). By separating the social work characteristics fromthe task and knowledge characteristics, the WDQ allowsjob designers to focus specifically on the design ofthe interpersonal aspects of the work. Managers oftenhave to address these aspects of work design in adifferent manner than they do with task and knowl-edge aspects. Subsequent meta-analytic evidence sug-gests that social characteristics addressed in the WDQexplain incremental variance above and beyond thatexplained by motivational characteristics (Humphreyet al., 2007).

2.2.2 Design RecommendationsTable 2 provides a list of statements that describe rec-ommendations for the motivational approach. It sug-gests a job should allow a worker autonomy to makedecisions about how and when tasks are to be done. Aworker should feel his or her work is important to theoverall mission of the organization or department. This

is often done by allowing a worker to perform a largerunit of work or to perform an entire piece of workfrom beginning to end. Feedback on job performanceshould be given to workers from the task itself as wellas from the supervisor and others. Workers should beable to use a variety of skills and to personally growon the job. This approach also considers the social,or people/interaction, aspects of the job; jobs shouldhave opportunities for participation, communication,and recognition. Finally, other human resource systemsshould contribute to the motivating atmosphere, suchas adequate pay, promotion, and job security systems.

2.2.3 Advantages and DisadvantagesThe goal of this approach is to enhance psychologicalmeaningfulness of jobs, thus influencing a variety ofattitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Table 1 summa-rizes some of the advantages and disadvantages foundin research. Jobs designed according to the motivationalapproach have more satisfied, motivated, and involvedemployees who tend to have higher performance andlower absenteeism. Customer service may be improved,because employees take more pride in work and cancatch their own errors by performing a larger part ofthe work. Social impact, social worth, and mere socialcontact have been shown to have a positive influenceon workers’ performance (Grant, 2008; Grant et al.,2007). In a field experiment with community recre-ation center lifeguards, Grant (2008) demonstrated thattask significance operated through their perceptions ofsocial impact and social worth to influence job dedica-tion and helping behavior. As an answer to the rapidly



changing nature of work, researchers have begun tostudy work design characteristics that could stimulateemployee proactivity. While some characteristics arealready embedded within the current models of jobdesign, the approach has led to a few additional charac-teristics that could prove beneficial in a dynamic workenvironment. Specifically, both ambiguity and account-ability have been suggested to influence employees’proactive behaviors (Grant and Parker, 2009; Staw andBoettger, 1990). In terms of disadvantages, jobs toohigh on the motivational approach require more training,have greater skill and ability requirements for staffing,and may require higher compensation. Overly moti-vating jobs may also be so stimulating that workersbecome predisposed to mental overload, fatigue, errors,and occupational stress.

2.3 Perceptual/Motor Job Design Approach


This approach draws on a scientific discipline whichgoes by many names, including human factors, humanfactors engineering, human engineering, man–machinesystems engineering, and engineering psychology. Itdeveloped from a number of other disciplines, primarilyexperimental psychology, but also industrial engineer-ing (Meister, 1971). Within experimental psychology,job design recommendations draw heavily from knowl-edge of human skilled performance (Welford, 1976) andthe analysis of humans as information processors (seeChapters 2.4). The main concern of this approach is effi-cient and safe utilization of humans in human–machinesystems, with emphasis on selection, design, and ar-rangement of system components to take account ofboth human abilities and limitations (Pearson, 1971).It is more concerned with equipment than psychologyand with human abilities than engineering.

This approach received public attention with theThree Mile Island incident where it was concluded thatthe control room operator job in the nuclear power plantmay have placed too many demands on the operatorin an emergency situation, thus predisposing errors ofjudgment (Campion and Thayer, 1987). Governmentregulations issued since then require nuclear plants toconsider “human factors” in their design (U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, 1981). The primary emphasisof this approach is on perceptual and motor abilities ofpeople. (See Chapters 20–22 for more information onequipment design).

The contextual characteristics of the WDQ reflectthe physical and environmental contexts within whichwork is performed. This was an aspect initially describedin the MJDQ and subsequently elaborated upon in theWDQ. Many of the contextual characteristics of jobdesign encompass the perceptual–motor and biologi-cal/physiological (described in Section 2.4) approachesto job design as addressed in the MJDQ. Contextualcharacteristics include ergonomics, physical demands,work conditions, and equipment use. The WDQ’s dis-crimination between contextual characteristics and otherforms of motivational characteristics (i.e., task, knowl-edge, and social characteristics) allows managers to

focus specifically on the aspects of work that canproduce worker strain or hazardous working condi-tions while still assessing the motivating aspects of thework. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that the contex-tual work characteristics addressed in the WDQ explainincremental variance above and beyond that explainedby the motivational characteristics (Humphrey et al.,2007).

2.3.2 Design Recommendations

Table 2 provides a list of statements describing impor-tant recommendations of the perceptual/motor approach.They refer to either the equipment or environment andto information-processing requirements. Their thrust isto consider mental abilities and limitations of humanssuch that the attention and concentration requirementsof the job do not exceed the abilities of the least capa-ble potential worker. Focus is on the limits of the leastcapable worker because this approach is concerned withthe effectiveness of the total system, which is no betterthan its “weakest link.” Jobs should be designed to limitthe amount of information workers must pay attentionto and remember. Lighting levels should be appropriate,displays and controls should be logical and clear, work-places should be well laid out and safe, and equipmentshould be easy to use. (See Chapters 56–61 for moreinformation on human factors applications.)

2.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages

The goals of this approach are to enhance reliability,safety, and positive user reactions. Table 1 summarizesadvantages and disadvantages found in research. Jobsdesigned according to the perceptual/motor approachhave lower errors and accidents. Like the mechanisticapproach, it reduces mental ability requirements of thejob; thus employees may be less stressed and mentallyfatigued. It may also create some efficiencies, such asreduced training time and staffing requirements. Onthe other hand, costs from the excessive use of theperceptual/motor approach can include low satisfaction,low motivation, and boredom due to inadequate mentalstimulation. This problem is exacerbated by the fact thatdesigns based on the least capable worker essentiallylower a job’s mental requirements.

2.4 Biological Job Design Approach


This approach and the perceptual/motor approach sharea joint concern for proper person–machine fit. Themajor difference is that this approach is more orientedtoward biological considerations and stems from suchdisciplines as work physiology (see Chapter 10), biome-chanics (i.e., study of body movements, see Chapter 9),and anthropometry (i.e., study of body sizes, seeChapters 8 and 23). Although many specialists prob-ably practice both approaches together, as is reflectedin many texts in the area (Konz, 1983), a split doesexist between Americans who are more psychologicallyoriented and use the title “human factors engineer” andEuropeans who are more physiologically oriented anduse the title “ergonomist” (Chapanis, 1970). Like the



perceptual–motor approach, the biological approach isconcerned with the design of equipment and workplacesas well as the design of tasks (Grandjean, 1980).

2.4.2 Design RecommendationsTable 2 lists important recommendations from thebiological approach. This approach tries to design jobsto reduce physical demands to avoid exceeding people’sphysical capabilities and limitations. Jobs should notrequire excessive strength and lifting, and, again,abilities of the least physically able potential worker setthe maximum level. Chairs should be designed for goodpostural support. Excessive wrist movement should bereduced by redesigning tasks and equipment. Noise,temperature, and atmosphere should be controlled withinreasonable limits. Proper work–rest schedules should beprovided so employees can recuperate from the physicaldemands.

2.4.3 Advantages and DisadvantagesThe goals of this approach are to maintain employ-ees’ comfort and physical well-being. Table 1 sum-marizes some advantages and disadvantages observedin research. Jobs designed according to this approachrequire less physical effort, result in less fatigue, andcreate fewer injuries and aches and pains than jobs lowon this approach. Occupational illnesses, such as lowerback pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, are fewer onjobs designed with this approach. There may be lowerabsenteeism and higher job satisfaction on jobs whichare not physically arduous. However, a direct cost of thisapproach may be the expense of changes in equipment orjob environments needed to implement the recommen-dations. At the extreme, costs may include jobs with sofew physical demands that workers become drowsy orlethargic, thus reducing performance. Clearly, extremesof physical activity and inactivity should be avoided,and an optimal level of physical activity should bedeveloped.

3 TEAM DESIGN APPROACH

3.1 Historical DevelopmentAn alternative to designing work around individualjobs is to design work for teams of workers. Teamscan vary a great deal in how they are designed and canconceivably incorporate elements from any of the jobdesign approaches discussed. However, the focus here ison the self-managing, autonomous type of team designapproach, which is gaining considerable popularity inorganizations and substantial research attention today(Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Hoerr, 1989; Ilgen et al.,2005; Sundstrom et al., 1990; Swezey and Salas, 1992;Campion et al., 1996; Parker, 2003; LePine et al.,2008). Autonomous work teams derive their conceptualbasis from motivational job design and from sociotech-nical systems theory, which in turn reflect social andorganizational psychology and organizational behavior(Cummings, 1978; Davis, 1971; Davis and Valfer,1965; Morgeson and Campion, 2003). The Hawthornestudies (Homans, 1950) and European experimentswith autonomous work groups (Kelly, 1982; Pasmore

et al., 1982) called attention to the benefits of applyingwork teams in situations other than sports and militarysettings. Although enthusiasm for the use of teams hadwaned in the 1960s and 1970s due to research discover-ing some disadvantages of teams (Buys, 1978; Zander,1979), the 1980s brought a resurgence of interest in theuse of work teams and it has become an extremely popu-lar work design in organizations today (Hackman, 2002;Hoerr, 1989; Ilgen et al., 2005; Sundstrom et al., 1990).This renewed interest may be due to the cost advantagesof having fewer supervisors with self-managed teamsor the apparent logic of the benefits of teamwork.

3.2 Design Recommendations

Teams can vary in the degree of authority and autonomythey have (Banker et al., 1996). For example, manager-led teams have responsibility only for the execution oftheir work. Management designs the work, designs theteams, and provides an organizational context for theteams. However, in autonomous work teams, or self-managing teams, team members design and monitortheir own work and performance. They may also designtheir own team structure (e.g., delineating interrelation-ships among members) and composition (e.g., selectingmembers). In such self-designing teams, management isonly responsible for the teams’ organizational context(Hackman, 1987). Although team design could incor-porate elements of either mechanistic or motivationalapproaches to design, narrow and simplistic mechanisti-cally designed jobs would be less consistent with othersuggested aspects of the team approach to design thanmotivationally designed jobs. Mechanistically designedjobs would not allow an organization to gain as muchof the advantages from placing workers in teams.

Figure 1 and Table 4 provide important recommen-dations from the self-managing team design approach.Many of the advantages of work teams depend on howteams are designed and supported by their organiza-tion. According to the theory behind self-managing teamdesign, decision making and responsibility should bepushed down to the team members (Hackman, 1987). Ifmanagement is willing to follow this philosophy, teamscan provide several additional advantages. By pushingdecision making down to the team and requiring con-sensus, the organization will find greater acceptance,understanding, and ownership of decisions (Porter et al.,1987). The perceived autonomy resulting from makingwork decisions should be both satisfying and motivat-ing. Thus, this approach tries to design teams so theyhave a high degree of self-management and all teammembers participate in decision making.

The team design approach also suggests that the setof tasks assigned to a team should provide a whole andmeaningful piece of work (i.e., have task identity as inthe motivational approach to job design). This allowsteam members to see how their work contributes to awhole product or process, which might not be possiblewith individuals working alone. This can give workersa better idea of the significance of their work andcreate greater identification with the finished productor service. If team workers rotate among a varietyof subtasks and cross-train on different operations,



Job design• Self-management• Participation• Task variety• Task significance• Task identity

Composition• Heterogeneity• Flexibility• Relative size• Preference for teamwork

Context

• Training

• Managerial support

• Communication/cooperation between teams

Interdependence

• Task interdependence

• Goal interdependence

• Interdependent feedback and rewards

Process• Potency• Social support• Workload sharing• Communication/cooperation within the team

Themes/characteristics Effectiveness criteria

Productivity

Satisfaction

Manager judgments

Figure 1 Characteristics related to team effectiveness.

workers should also perceive greater variety in the work(Campion et al., 1994b).

Interdependent tasks, goals, feedback, and rewardsshould be provided to create feelings of team interdepen-dence among members and focus on the team as the unitof performance, rather than on the individual. It is sug-gested that team members should be heterogeneous interms of areas of expertise and background so their var-ied knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) complementone another. Teams also need adequate training, man-agerial support, and organizational resources to carry outtheir tasks. Managers should encourage positive groupprocesses including open communication and coopera-tion within and between work groups, supportivenessand sharing of the workload among team members, anddevelopment of positive team spirit and confidence inthe team’s ability to perform effectively.

3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages

Table 5 summarizes advantages and disadvantages ofteam design relative to individual job design. Tobegin with, teams designed so members have het-erogeneity of KSAs can help team members learnby working with others who have different KSAs.Cross-training on different tasks can occur, and theworkforce can become more flexible (Goodman et al.,1986). Teams with heterogeneous KSAs also allowfor synergistic combinations of ideas and abilities notpossible with individuals working alone, and such teamshave generally shown higher performance, especiallywhen task requirements are diverse (Goodman et al.,1986; Shaw, 1983).

Social support can be especially important whenteams face difficult decisions and deal with difficultpsychological aspects of tasks, such as in military



Table 4 Team Design Measure

Instructions: This questionnaire consists of statements about your team and how your team functions as a group.Please indicate the extent to which each statement describes your team by circling a number to the right of eachstatement.Please use the following scale:


Self-Management1. The members of my team are responsible for determining the methods, procedures, and

schedules with which the work gets done.1 2 3 4 5

2. My team rather than my manager decides who does what tasks within the team. 1 2 3 4 53. Most work-related decisions are made by the members of my team rather than by my

manager.1 2 3 4 5

Participation4. As a member of a team, I have a real say in how the team carries out its work. 1 2 3 4 55. Most members of my team get a chance to participate in decision making. 1 2 3 4 56. My team is designed to let everyone participate in decision making. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Variety7. Most members of my team get a chance to learn the different tasks the team performs. 1 2 3 4 58. Most everyone on my team gets a chance to do the more interesting tasks. 1 2 3 4 59. Task assignments often change from day to day to meet the workload needs of the team. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Significance (Importance)10. The work performed by my team is important to the customers in my area. 1 2 3 4 511. My team makes an important contribution to serving the company’s customers. 1 2 3 4 512. My team helps me feel that my work is important to the company. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Identity (Mission)13. The team concept allows all the work on a given product to be completed by the same set of

people.1 2 3 4 5

14. My team is responsible for all aspects of a product for its area. 1 2 3 4 515. My team is responsible for its own unique area or segment of the business. 1 2 3 4 5

Task Interdependence (Interdependence)16. I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my

team.1 2 3 4 5

17. Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform theirtasks.

1 2 3 4 5

18. Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one another. 1 2 3 4 5

Goal Interdependence (Goals)19. My work goals come directly from the goals of my team. 1 2 3 4 520. My work activities on any given day are determined by my team’s goals for that day. 1 2 3 4 521. I do very few activities on my job that are not related to the goals of my team. 1 2 3 4 5

Interdependent Feedback and Rewards (Feedback and Rewards)22. Feedback about how well I am doing my job comes primarily from information about how well

the entire team is doing.1 2 3 4 5

23. My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well my team performs. 1 2 3 4 524. Many rewards from my job (pay, promotion, etc.) are determined in large part by my

contributions as a team member.1 2 3 4 5




Table 4 (continued)

Heterogeneity (Membership)25. The members of my team vary widely in their areas of expertise. 1 2 3 4 526. The members of my team have a variety of different backgrounds and experiences. 1 2 3 4 527. The members of my team have skills and abilities that complement each other. 1 2 3 4 5

Flexibility (Member Flexibility)28. Most members of my team know each other’s jobs. 1 2 3 4 529. It is easy for the members of my team to fill in for one another. 1 2 3 4 530. My team is very flexible in terms of membership. 1 2 3 4 5

Relative Size (Size)31. The number of people in my team is too small for the work to be accomplished. (Reverse

scored)1 2 3 4 5

Preference for Team Work (Team Work Preferences)32. If given the choice, I would prefer to work as part of a team rather than work alone. 1 2 3 4 533. I find that working as a member of a team increases my ability to perform effectively. 1 2 3 4 534. I generally prefer to work as part of a team. 1 2 3 4 5

Training35. The company provides adequate technical training for my team. 1 2 3 4 536. The company provides adequate quality and customer service training for my team. 1 2 3 4 537. The company provides adequate team skills training for my team (communication,

organization, interpersonal, etc.).1 2 3 4 5

Managerial Support38. Higher management in the company supports the concept of teams. 1 2 3 4 539. My manager supports the concept of teams. 1 2 3 4 5

Communication/Cooperation between Work Groups40. I frequently talk to other people in the company besides the people on my team. 1 2 3 4 541. There is little competition between my team and other teams in the company. 1 2 3 4 542. Teams in the company cooperate to get the work done. 1 2 3 4 5

Potency (Spirit)43. Members of my team have great confidence that the team can perform effectively. 1 2 3 4 544. My team can take on nearly any task and complete it. 1 2 3 4 545. My team has a lot of team spirit. 1 2 3 4 5

Social Support46. Being in my team gives me the opportunity to work in a team and provide support to other

team members.1 2 3 4 5

47. My team increases my opportunities for positive social interaction. 1 2 3 4 548. Members of my team help each other out at work when needed. 1 2 3 4 5

Workload Sharing (Sharing the Work)49. Everyone on my team does their fair share of the work. 1 2 3 4 550. No one in my team depends on other team members to do the work for them. 1 2 3 4 551. Nearly all the members of my team contribute equally to the work. 1 2 3 4 5

Communication/Cooperation within the Work Group52. Members of my team are very willing to share information with other team members about our

work.1 2 3 4 5

53. Teams enhance the communications among people working on the same product. 1 2 3 4 554. Members of my team cooperate to get the work done. 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Table adapted from Campion et al. (1993). See reference and related research (Campion et al., 1996) for reliabilityand validity information. Scores for each team characteristic are calculated by averaging applicable items.



Table 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of WorkTeams

Advantages Disadvantages

• Team memberslearn from oneanother

• Possibility ofgreater workforceflexibility withcross-training

• Opportunity forsynergisticcombinations ofideas and abilities

• New approaches totasks may bediscovered

• Social facilitationand arousal

• Social support fordifficult tasks andsituations

• Increasedcommunicationand informationexchange betweenteam members

• Greatercooperation amongteam members

• Beneficial forinterdependentwork flows

• Greateracceptance andunderstanding ofdecisions whenteam makesdecisions

• Greater autonomy,variety, identity,significance, andfeedback possiblefor workers

• Commitment to theteam may stimulateperformance andattendance

• Lack ofcompatibility ofsome individualswith team work

• Additional need toselect workers to fitteam as well as job

• Possibility somemembers willexperience lessmotivating jobs

• Possibleincompatibility withcultural,organizational, orlabor–managementnorms

• Increasedcompetition andconflict betweenteams

• More timeconsuming due tosocializing,coordinationlosses, and needfor consensus

• Inhibition ofcreativity anddecision-makingprocesses;possibility ofgroupthink

• Less powerfulevaluation andrewards; socialloafing or freeriding may occur

• Less flexibility incases ofreplacement,turnover, ortransfer

Source: Adapted from Campion and Medsker (1992).

squads, medical teams, or police units (Campion andMedsker, 1992). In addition, the simple presence ofothers can be psychologically arousing. Research hasshown that such arousal can have a positive effect onperformance when the task is well learned (Zajonc,1965) and when other team members are perceivedas evaluating the performer (Harkins, 1987; Porter

et al., 1987). With routine jobs, this arousal effectmay counteract boredom and performance decrements(Cartwright, 1968).

Another advantage of teams is that they can increaseinformation exchanged between members throughproximity and shared tasks (McGrath, 1984). Increasedcooperation and communication within teams canbe particularly useful when workers’ jobs are highlyinterrelated, such as when workers whose tasks comelater in the process must depend on the performanceof workers whose tasks come earlier or when workersexchange work back and forth among themselves(Mintzberg, 1979; Thompson, 1967).

In addition, if teams are rewarded for team effort,rather than individual effort, members will have anincentive to cooperate with one another (Leventhal,1976). The desire to maintain power by controllinginformation may be reduced. More experienced workersmay be more willing to train the less experiencedwhen they are not in competition with them. Teamdesign and rewards can also be helpful in situationswhere it is difficult to measure individual performanceor where workers mistrust supervisors’ assessments ofperformance (Milkovich and Newman, 1993).

Finally, teams can be beneficial if team membersdevelop a feeling of commitment and loyalty to theirteam (Cartwright, 1968). For workers who do notdevelop high commitment to their organization ormanagement and who do not become highly involvedin their job, work teams can provide a source ofcommitment. That is, members may feel responsible toattend work, cooperate with others, and perform wellbecause of commitment to their work team, even thoughthey are not strongly committed to the organization orthe work itself.

Thus, designing work around teams can provideseveral advantages to organizations and their workers.Unfortunately, there are also disadvantages to usingwork teams and situations in which individual-leveldesign is preferable to team design. For example, someindividuals may dislike team work and may not havenecessary interpersonal skills or desire to work in ateam. When selecting team members, one has the addi-tional requirement of selecting workers to fit the team aswell as the job. (Section 4.3 provides more informationon the selection of team members; see also Chapter 16for general information on personnel selection.)

Individuals can experience less autonomy and lesspersonal identification when working on a team. Design-ing work around teams does not guarantee workersgreater variety, significance, and identity. If memberswithin the team do not rotate among tasks or if somemembers are assigned exclusively to less desirable tasks,not all members will benefit from team design. Memberscan still have fractionated, demotivating jobs.

Team work can also be incompatible with culturalnorms. The United States has a very individualisticculture (Hofstede, 1980). Applying team methods thathave been successful in collectivistic societies like Japanmay be problematic in the United States. In addition,



organizational norms and labor–management relationsmay be incompatible with team design, making its usemore difficult.

Some advantages of team design can create disadvan-tages as well. First, though team rewards can increasecommunication and cooperation and reduce competi-tion within a team, they may cause greater competitionand reduced communication between teams. If mem-bers identify too strongly with a team, they may notrealize when behaviors that benefit the team detractfrom organizational goals and create conflicts detri-mental to productivity. Increased communication withinteams may not always be task relevant either. Teamsmay spend work time socializing. Team decision mak-ing can take longer than individual decision making,and the need for coordination within teams can be timeconsuming.

Decision making and creativity can also be inhibitedby team processes. When teams become highly cohe-sive, they may become so alike in their views that theydevelop “groupthink” (Janis, 1972). When groupthinkoccurs, teams tend to underestimate their competition,fail to adequately critique fellow team members’ sug-gestions, not appraise alternatives adequately, and failto work out contingency plans. In addition, team pres-sures distort judgments. Decisions may be based moreon persuasiveness of dominant individuals or the powerof majorities, rather than on the quality of decisions.Research has found a tendency for team judgmentsto be more extreme than the average of individualmembers’ predecision judgments (Janis, 1972; McGrath,1984; Morgeson and Campion, 1997). Although evi-dence shows highly cohesive teams are more satisfiedwith their teams, cohesiveness is not necessarily relatedto high productivity. Whether cohesiveness is related toperformance depends on a team’s norms and goals. Ifa team’s norm is to be productive, cohesiveness willenhance productivity; however, if the norm is not oneof commitment to productivity, cohesiveness can havea negative influence (Zajonc, 1965).

The use of teams and team-level rewards canalso decrease the motivating power of evaluation andreward systems. If team members are not evaluated forindividual performance, do not believe their output canbe distinguished from the team’s, or do not perceive alink between their personal performance and outcomes,social loafing (Harkins, 1987) can occur. In suchsituations, teams do not perform up to the potentialexpected from combining individual efforts.

Finally, teams may be less flexible in some respectsbecause they are more difficult to move or transferas a unit than individuals (Sundstrom et al., 1990).Turnover, replacements, and employee transfers maydisrupt teams. And members may not readily acceptnew members.

Thus, whether work teams are advantageous dependsto a great extent on the composition, structure, rewardsystems, environment, and task of the team. Table 6presents questions that can help determine whether workshould be designed around teams rather than individuals.

Table 6 When to Design Jobs around Work Teams

1. Are workers’ tasks highly interdependent or couldthey be made to be so? Would thisinterdependence enhance efficiency or quality?

2. Do the tasks require a variety of knowledge, skills,abilities such that combining individuals withdifferent backgrounds would make a differencein performance?

3. Is cross-training desired? Would breadth of skillsand workforce flexibility be essential to theorganization?

4. Could increased arousal, motivation, and effort toperform make a difference in effectiveness?

5. Can social support help workers deal with jobstresses?

6. Could increased communication and informationexchange improve performance rather thaninterfere?

7. Could increased cooperation aid performance?8. Are individual evaluation and rewards difficult or

impossible to make or are they mistrusted byworkers?

9. Could common measures of performance bedeveloped and used?

10. Is it technically possible to group tasks in ameaningful, efficient way?

11. Would individuals be willing to work in teams?12. Does the labor force have the interpersonal skills

needed to work in teams?13. Would team members have the capacity and

willingness to be trained in interpersonal andtechnical skills required for team work?

14. Would team work be compatible with culturalnorms, organizational policies, and leadershipstyles?

15. Would labor-management relations be favorableto team job design?

16. Would the amount of time taken to reachdecisions, consensus, and coordination not bedetrimental to performance?

17. Can turnover be kept to a minimum?18. Can teams be defined as a meaningful unit of the

organization with identifiable inputs, outputs,and buffer areas which give them a separateidentity from other teams?

19. Would members share common resources,facilities, or equipment?

20. Would top management support team job design?

Source: Table adapted from Campion and Medsker(1992). Affirmative answers support the use of team jobdesign.

The more questions answered in the affirmative, themore likely teams are to be beneficial. If one choosesto design work around teams, suggestions for designingeffective teams are presented in Section 4.3.



4 IMPLEMENTATION ADVICE FOR JOBAND TEAM DESIGN

4.1 General Implementation Advice

4.1.1 Procedures to Follow

There are several general philosophies that are helpfulwhen designing or redesigning jobs or teams:

1. As noted previously, designs are not inalterableor dictated by technology. There is somediscretion in the design of all work situationsand considerable discretion in most.

2. There is no single best design; there are simplybetter and worse designs depending on one’sdesign perspective.

3. Design is iterative and evolutionary and shouldcontinue to change and improve over time.

4. Participation of workers affected generallyimproves the quality of the resulting design andacceptance of suggested changes.

5. The process of the project, or how it is con-ducted, is important in terms of involvementof all interested parties, consideration of alter-native motivations, and awareness of territorialboundaries.

Procedures for the Initial Design of Jobs orTeams In consideration of process aspects of design,Davis and Wacker (1982) suggest four steps:

1. Form a steering committee. This committee usu-ally consists of a team of high-level executiveswho have a direct stake in the new jobs orteams. The purposes of the committee are to (a)bring into focus the project’s objective, (b) pro-vide resources and support for the project, (c)help gain cooperation of all parties affected, and(d) oversee and guide the project.

2. Form a design task force. The task forcemay include engineers, managers, job or teamdesign experts, architects, specialists, and otherswith relevant knowledge or responsibility. Thetask force is to gather data, generate andevaluate design alternatives, and help implementrecommended designs.

3. Develop a philosophy statement. The first goalof the task force is to develop a philosophystatement to guide decisions involved in theproject. The philosophy statement is developedwith input from the steering committee and mayinclude the project’s purposes, organization’sstrategic goals, assumptions about workers andthe nature of work, and process considerations.

4. Proceed in an evolutionary manner. Jobs shouldnot be overspecified. With considerable inputfrom eventual job holders or team members,the work design will continue to change andimprove over time.

According to Davis and Wacker (1982), the pro-cess of redesigning existing jobs is much the same asdesigning original jobs with two additions. First, exist-ing job incumbents must be involved. Second, moreattention needs to be given to implementation issues.Those involved in the implementation must feel owner-ship of and commitment to the change and believe theredesign represents their own interests.

Potential Steps to Follow Along with the stepsdiscussed above, a redesign project should also includethe following five steps:

1. Measuring Design of Existing job or Teams . Thequestionnaire methodology and other analysistools described in Section 5 may be used tomeasure current jobs or teams.

2. Diagnosing Potential Design Problems . Basedon data collected in step 1, the current designis analyzed for potential problems. The taskforce and employee involvement are important.Focused team meetings are a useful vehicle foridentifying and evaluating problems.

3. Determining Job or Team Design Changes .Changes will be guided by project goals, prob-lems identified in step 2, and one or more ofthe approaches to work design. Often severalpotential changes are generated and evaluated.Evaluation of alternative changes may involveconsideration of advantages and disadvantagesidentified in previous research (see Table 1) andopinions of engineers, managers, and employees.

4. Making Design Changes . Implementation plansshould be developed in detail along with back-up plans in case there are difficulties with thenew design. Communication and training arekeys to implementation. Changes might also bepilot tested before widespread implementation.

5. Conducting Follow-Up Evaluation . Evaluatingthe new design after implementation is proba-bly the most neglected part of the process inmost applications. The evaluation might includethe collection of design measurements on theredesigned jobs/teams using the same instru-ments as in step 1. Evaluation may also beconducted on outcomes, such as employee satis-faction, error rates, and training time (Table 1).Scientifically valid evaluations require experi-mental research strategies with control groups.Such studies may not always be possible inorganizations, but often quasi-experimental andother field research designs are possible (Cookand Campbell, 1979). Finally, the need foradjustments is identified through the follow-up evaluation. (For examples of evaluations,see Section 5.8 and Campion and McClelland,1991, 1993.)



4.1.2 Individual Differences Among Workers

It is a common observation that not all employeesrespond the same to the same job. Some people on ajob have high satisfaction, whereas others on the samejob have low satisfaction. Clearly, there are individualdifferences in how people respond to work. Consid-erable research has looked at individual differencesin reaction to the motivational design approach. It hasbeen found that some people respond more positivelythan others to highly motivational work. Thesedifferences are generally viewed as differences in needsfor personal growth and development (Hackman andOldham, 1980).

Using the broader notion of preferences/tolerancesfor types of work, the consideration of individualdifferences has been expanded to all four approaches tojob design (Campion, 1988; Campion and McClelland,1991) and to the team design approach (Campion et al.,1993; Campion et al., 1996). Table 7 provides scalesthat can be used to determine job incumbents’ prefer-ences/tolerances. These scales can be administered inthe same manner as the questionnaire measures of joband team design discussed in Section 5.

Although consideration of individual differences isencouraged, there are often limits to which such dif-ferences can be accommodated. Jobs or teams may have

Table 7 Preferences/Tolerances for the Design Approaches

Instructions: Indicate the extent to which each statement is descriptive of your preferences and tolerances fortypes of work on the scale below. Circle answers to the right of each statement.Please use the following scale:


Preferences/Tolerances for Mechanistic Design1. I have a high tolerance for routine work. 1 2 3 4 52. I prefer to work on one task at a time. 1 2 3 4 53. I have a high tolerance for repetitive work. 1 2 3 4 54. I prefer work that is easy to learn. 1 2 3 4 5

Preferences/Tolerances for Motivational Design5. I prefer highly challenging work that taxes my skills and abilities. 1 2 3 4 56. I have a high tolerance for mentally demanding work. 1 2 3 4 57. I prefer work that gives a great amount of feedback as to how I am doing. 1 2 3 4 58. I prefer work that regularly requires the learning of new skills. 1 2 3 4 59. I prefer work that requires me to develop my own methods, procedures, goals, and schedules. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I prefer work that has a great amount of variety in duties and responsibilities. 1 2 3 4 5

Preferences/Tolerances for Perceptual/Motor Design11. I prefer work that is very fast paced and stimulating. 1 2 3 4 512. I have a high tolerance for stressful work. 1 2 3 4 513. I have a high tolerance for complicated work. 1 2 3 4 514. I have a high tolerance for work where there are frequently too many things to do at one time. 1 2 3 4 5

Preferences/Tolerances for Biological Design15. I have a high tolerance for physically demanding work. 1 2 3 4 516. I have a fairly high tolerance for hot, noisy, or dirty work. 1 2 3 4 517. I prefer work that gives me some physical exercise. 1 2 3 4 518. I prefer work that gives me some opportunities to use my muscles. 1 2 3 4 5

Preferences/Tolerances for Team Work19. If given the choice, I would prefer to work as part of a team rather than work alone. 1 2 3 4 520. I find that working as a member of a team increases my ability to perform effectively. 1 2 3 4 521. I generally prefer to work as part of a team. 1 2 3 4 5

Source: Table adapted from Campion (1988) and Campion et al. (1993).Note: See reference for reliability and validity information. Scores for each preference/tolerance are calculated by averagingapplicable items. Interpretations differ slightly across the scales. For the mechanistic and motivational designs, higherscores suggest more favorable reactions from incumbents to well-designed jobs. For the perceptual/motor and biologicalapproaches, higher scores suggest less unfavorable reactions from incumbents to poorly designed jobs.



to be designed for people who are not yet known orwho differ in their preferences. Fortunately, although evi-dence indicates individual differences moderate reactionsto the motivational approach (Fried and Ferris, 1987), thedifferences are of degree but not direction. That is, somepeople respond more positively than others to motiva-tional work, but few respond negatively. It is likely thatthis also applies to the other design approaches.

4.1.3 Some Basic Choices

Hackman and Oldham (1980) have provided five strate-gic choices that relate to implementing job redesign. Thenote that little research exists indicating the exact conse-quences of each choice, and correct choices may differby organization. The basic choices are:

1. Individual versus Team Designs for Work . Aninitial decision is to either enrich individual jobsor create teams. This also includes considerationof whether any redesign should be undertakenand its likelihood of success.

2. Theory Based versus Intuitive Changes . Thischoice was basically defined as the motiva-tional (theory) approach versus no particular(atheoretical) approach. In the present chapter,this choice may be better framed as choosingamong the four approaches to job design. How-ever, as argued earlier, consideration of only oneapproach may lead to some costs or additionalbenefits being ignored.

3. Tailored versus Broadside Installation . Thischoice is between tailoring changes to individu-als and making the changes for all in a given job.

4. Participative versus Top-Down Change Pro-cesses . The most common orientation is thatparticipative is best. However, costs of partic-ipation include the time involved and incum-bents’ possible lack of a broad knowledge of thebusiness.

5. Consultation versus Collaboration with Stake-holders . The effects of job design changes oftenextend far beyond the individual incumbent anddepartment. For example, a job’s output maybe an input to a job elsewhere in the organi-zation. The presence of a union also requiresadditional collaboration. Depending on consid-erations, participation of stakeholders may rangefrom no involvement through consultation to fullcollaboration.

4.1.4 Overcoming Resistance to Change inRedesign Projects

Resistance to change can be a problem in any projectinvolving major changes (Morgeson et al., 1997). Fail-ure rates of new technology implementations demon-strate a need to give more attention to the human aspectsof change projects. This concern has also been reflectedin the area of participatory ergonomics, which encour-ages the use of participatory techniques when under-taking an ergonomic intervention (Wilson and Haines,1997). It has been estimated that between 50 and 75% of

newly implemented manufacturing technologies in theUnited States have failed, with a disregard for humanand organizational issues considered to be a bigger causefor the failures than technical problems (Majchrzak,1988; Turnage, 1990). The number one obstacle toimplementation was considered to be human resistanceto change (Hyer, 1984).

Based on the work of Majchrzak (1988), Gallagherand Knight (1986), and Turnage (1990), guidelines forreducing resistance to change include the following:

1. Involve workers in planning the change. Workersshould be informed of changes in advance andinvolved in the process of diagnosing currentproblems and developing solutions. Resistanceis decreased if participants feel the project istheir own and not imposed from outside and ifthe project is adopted by consensus.

2. Top management should strongly support thechange. If workers feel management is notstrongly committed, they are less likely to takethe project seriously.

3. Create change consistent with worker needs andexisting values. Resistance is less if change isseen to reduce present burdens, offer interestingexperience, and not threaten worker autonomyor security or be inconsistent with other goalsand values in the organization. Workers needto see the advantages to them of the change.Resistance is less if proponents of changecan empathize with opponents (recognize validobjections and relieve unnecessary fears).

4. Create an environment of open, supportive com-munication. Resistance will be lessened if partic-ipants experience support and have trust in eachother. Resistance can be reduced if misunder-standings and conflicts are expected as naturalto the innovation process. Provision should bemade for clarification.

5. Allow for flexibility. Resistance is reduced if theproject is kept open to revision and reconsider-ation with experience.

4.2 Implementation Advice for Job Designand Redesign4.2.1 Methods for Combining TasksIn many cases, designing jobs is largely a functionof combining tasks. Some guidance can be gainedby extrapolating from specific design recommendationsin Table 2. For example, variety in the motivationalapproach can be increased by simply combining dif-ferent tasks in the same job. Conversely, specializationfrom the mechanistic approach can be increased by onlyincluding very similar tasks in the same job. It is alsopossible when designing jobs to first generate alternativetask combinations, then evaluate them using the designapproaches in Table 2.

A small amount of research within the motivationalapproach has focused explicitly on predicting relation-ships between combinations of tasks and the design ofresulting jobs (Wong, 1989; Wong and Campion, 1991).This research suggests that a job’s motivational quality



High

Mot

ivat

iona

l job

des

ign

Low

Low Medium High

Motivationaltask design

Tasksimilarity

Taskinterdependence

Task measures

Figure 2 Effects of task design, interdependence, andsimilarity on motivational job design.

is a function of three task-level variables, as illustratedin Figure 2.

1. Task Design . The higher the motivational qualityof individual tasks, the higher the motivationalquality of a job. Table 2 can be used toevaluate individual tasks; then motivationalscores for individual tasks can be summedtogether. Summing is recommended rather thanaveraging because both the motivational qualityof the tasks and the number of tasks areimportant in determining a job’s motivationalquality (Globerson and Crossman, 1976).

2. Task Interdependence. Interdependence amongtasks has been shown to be positively related tomotivational value up to some moderate point;beyond that point increasing interdependencehas been shown to lead to lower motivationalvalue. Thus, for motivational jobs, the totalamount of interdependence among tasks shouldbe kept at a moderate level. Both completeindependence and excessively high interdepen-dence should be avoided. Table 8 contains thedimension of task interdependence and providesa questionnaire to measure it. Table 8 can beused to judge the interdependence of each pairof tasks that are being evaluated for inclusionin a job.

3. Task Similarity . Similarity among tasks maybe the oldest rule of job design, but beyonda moderate level, it tends to decrease a job’smotivational value. Thus, to design motivationaljobs, high levels of similarity should be avoided.Similarity at the task pair level can be judged inmuch the same manner as interdependence byusing dimensions in Table 8 (see the note toTable 8).

4.2.2 Trade-Offs among Job DesignApproachesAlthough one should strive to construct jobs that arewell designed on all the approaches, it is clear designapproaches conflict. As Table 1 illustrates, benefits ofsome approaches are costs of others. No one approach

satisfies all outcomes. The greatest potential conflictsare between the motivational and the mechanistic andperceptual/motor approaches. They produce nearlyopposite outcomes. The mechanistic and percep-tual/motor approaches recommend jobs that are simple,safe, and reliable, with minimal mental demands onworkers. The motivational approach encourages morecomplicated and stimulating jobs, with greater mentaldemands. The team approach is consistent with themotivational approach and therefore also may conflictwith the mechanistic and perceptual/motor approaches.

Because of these conflicts, trade-offs may be nec-essary. Major trade-offs will be in the mental demandscreated by the alternative design strategies. Making jobsmore mentally demanding increases the likelihood ofachieving workers’ goals of satisfaction and motivationbut decreases the chances of reaching the organization’sgoals of reduced training, staffing costs, and errors.Which trade-offs will be made depends on outcomesone prefers to maximize. Generally, a compromise maybe optimal.

Trade-offs may not always be needed, however.Jobs can often be improved on one approach whilestill maintaining their quality on other approaches.For example, in one redesign study, the motivationalapproach was applied to clerical jobs to improveemployee satisfaction and customer service (Campionand McClelland, 1991). Expected benefits occurred alongwith some expected costs (e.g., increased training andcompensation requirements), but not all potential costsoccurred (e.g., quality and efficiency did not decrease).

In another redesign study, Morgeson and Campion(2002) sought to increase both satisfaction and efficiencyin jobs at a pharmaceutical company. They found thatwhen jobs were designed to increase only satisfactionor only efficiency, the common trade-offs were present(e.g., increased or decreased satisfaction, training require-ments). When jobs were designed to increase both sat-isfaction and efficiency, however, these trade-offs werereduced. They suggested that a work design process thatexplicitly considers both motivational and mechanisticaspects of work is key to avoiding the trade-offs.

Another strategy for minimizing trade-offs is to avoiddesign decisions that influence the mental demands ofjobs. An example of this is to enhance motivationaldesign by focusing on social aspects (e.g., communica-tion, participation, recognition, feedback). These designfeatures can be raised without incurring costs of increasedmental demands. Moreover, many of these features areunder the direct control of managers.

The independence of the biological approach pro-vides another opportunity to improve design with-out incurring trade-offs with other approaches. Onecan reduce physical demands without affecting mentaldemands of a job. Of course, the cost of equipment mayneed to be considered.

Adverse effects of trade-offs can often be reducedby avoiding designs that are extremely high or lowon any approach. Or, alternatively, one might requireminimum acceptable levels on each approach. Knowingall approaches and their corresponding outcomes will



Table 8 Dimensions of Task Interdependence

Instructions: Indicate the extent to which each statement is descriptive of the pair of tasks using the scale below.Circle answers to the right of each statement. Scores are calcualted by averaging applicable items.Please use the following scale:


Inputs of the Tasks1. Materials/supplies: One task obtains, stores, or prepares the materials or supplies necessary

to perform the other task.1 2 3 4 5

2. Information: One task obtains or generates information for the other task. 1 2 3 4 53. Product/service: One task stores, implements, or handles the products or services produced

by the other task.1 2 3 4 5

Processes of the Tasks4. Input–output relationship: The products (or outputs) of one task are the supplies (or inputs)

necessary to perform the other task.1 2 3 4 5

5. Method and procedure: One task plans the procedures or work methods for the other task. 1 2 3 4 56. Scheduling: One task schedules the activities of the other task. 1 2 3 4 57. Supervision: One task reviews or checks the quality of products or services produced by the

other task.1 2 3 4 5

8. Sequencing: One task needs to be performed before the other task. 1 2 3 4 59. Time sharing: Some of the work activities of the two tasks must be performed at the same

time.1 2 3 4 5

10. Support service: The purpose of one task is to support or otherwise help the other task getperformed.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Tools/equipment: One task produces or maintains the tools or equipment used by the othertask.

1 2 3 4 5

Outputs of the Tasks12. Goal: One task can only be accomplished when the other task is properly performed. 1 2 3 4 513. Performance: How well one task is performed has a great impact on how well the other task

can be performed.1 2 3 4 5

14. Quality: The quality of the product or service produced by one task depends on how well theother task is performed.

1 2 3 4 5

Source: Table adapted from Wong and Campion (1991). See reference and Wong (1989) for reliability and validityinformation.Note: The task similarity measure contains 10 comparable items (excluding items 4, 6, 8, 9, and 14 and including an itemon customer/client). Scores for each dimension are calculated by averaging applicable items.

help one make more informed decisions and avoidunanticipated consequences.

4.2.3 Other Implementation Advice for JobDesign and RedesignGriffin (1982) provides advice geared toward managersconsidering a job redesign intervention in their area. Henotes that managers may also rely on consultants, taskforces, or informal discussion groups. Griffin suggestsnine steps:

1. Recognition of a need for change2. Selection of job redesign as a potential interven-

tion3. Diagnosis of the work system and content on

the following factors:

a. Existing jobsb. Existing workforcec. Technologyd. Organization designe. Leader behaviorsf. Team and social processes

4. Cost/benefit analysis of proposed changes5. Go/no-go decision6. Establishment of a strategy for redesign7. Implementation of the job changes8. Implementation of any needed supplemental

changes9. Evaluation of the redesigned jobs



Recently, researchers have begun to study themanner in which employees are proactive actors in thejob design process. Employees can either actively craftor change their jobs or they can negotiate idiosyncraticdeals that alter the design of their work (Wrzesniewskiand Dutton, 2001; Grant and Parker, 2009; Rousseauet al., 2006; Hornung et al., 2008). An idiosyncraticdeal is a formal agreement that an employee and hisor her manager or organization come to regardingthe individual’s work which creates a differencein the characteristics of the employee’s work fromthe characteristics of the work of employees in asimilar position. These types of deals represent formalindividualized work design arrangements.

Job crafting differs from traditional job design asit describes the changes that employees make to theirjobs. While traditional job design is implemented by amanager or an organization, job crafting refers to theinformal changes to task or social characteristics thatemployees make to their work. The implications of thesebehaviors are that employees will informally changethe design of their work. Being informal, they often goundetected and can be difficult for a manger to control.Managers should both recognize that these changesoccur and design employees’ work with the under-standing that the design of the work can and probablywill be altered to some degree by the employee.

4.3 Implementation Advice for Team Design4.3.1 Deciding on Team CompositionResearch encourages heterogeneous teams in terms ofskills, personality, and attitudes because it increasesthe range of competencies in teams (Gladstein, 1984)and is related to effectiveness (Campion et al., 1996).However, homogeneity is preferred if team moraleis the main criterion, and heterogeneous attributesmust be complementary if they are to contribute toeffectiveness. Heterogeneity for its own sake is unlikelyto enhance effectiveness (Campion et al., 1993). Anothercomposition characteristic of effective teams is whethermembers have flexible job assignments (Campion et al.,1993; Sundstrom et al., 1990). If members can performdifferent jobs, effectiveness is enhanced because theycan fill in as needed.

A third important aspect of composition is teamsize. Evidence suggests the importance of optimallymatching team size to team tasks to achieve highperformance and satisfaction. Teams need to be largeenough to accomplish work assigned to them but maybe dysfunctional when too large due to heightenedcoordination needs (O’Reilly and Roberts, 1977; Steiner,1972) or increased social loafing (McGrath, 1984;Wicker et al., 1976). Thus, groups should be staffed tothe smallest number needed to do the work (Goodmanet al., 1986; Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990).

4.3.2 Selecting Team MembersWith team design, interpersonal demands appear to bemuch greater than with traditional individual-based jobdesign (Lawler, 1986). A team-based setting highlightsthe importance of employees being capable of inter-acting in an effective manner with peers because the

amount of interpersonal interactions required is higherin teams (Stevens and Campion, 1994a,b, 1999). Teameffectiveness can depend heavily on members’ “interper-sonal competence” or their ability to successfully main-tain healthy working relationships and react to otherswith respect for their viewpoints (Perkins and Abramis,1990). There is a greater need for team members to becapable of effective interpersonal communication, col-laborative problem solving, and conflict management(Stevens and Campion, 1994a,b, 1999).

The process of employment selection for teammembers places greater stress on adequately evaluatinginterpersonal competence than is normally requiredin the selection of workers for individual jobs. Tocreate a selection instrument for evaluating potentialteam members’ ability to work successfully in teams,Stevens and Campion (1994a,b) reviewed literature inareas of sociotechnical systems theory (e.g., Cummings,1978; Wall et al., 1986), organizational behavior (e.g.,Hackman, 1987; Shea and Guzzo, 1987; Sundstromet al., 1990), industrial engineering (e.g., Davis andWacker, 1987; Majchrzak, 1988), and social psychology(e.g., McGrath, 1984; Steiner, 1972) to identify relevantKSAs. Table 9 shows the 14 KSAs identified as impor-tant for teamwork.

These KSAs have been used to develop a 35-item,multiple-choice employment test which was validatedin two studies to determine how highly related itwas to team members’ job performance (Stevens andCampion, 1999). The job performance of team membersin two different companies was rated by both supervisorsand co-workers. Correlations between the test and jobperformance ratings were significantly high, with somecorrelations exceeding 0.50. The test was also able toadd to the ability to predict job performance beyond thatprovided by a large battery of traditional employmentaptitude tests. Thus, these findings provide support forthe value of the teamwork KSAs and a selection testbased on them (Stevens and Campion, 1994a). Table 10shows some example items from the test.

Aside from written tests, there may be other waysteamwork KSAs could be measured for purposesof selection. For example, interviews may be espe-cially suited to measuring interpersonal attributes (e.g.,Posthuma et al., 2002). There is evidence that a struc-tured interview specifically designed to measure social(i.e., nontechnical) KSAs can have validity with job per-formance and predict incrementally beyond traditionalemployment tests (Campion et al., 1994a).

Assessment center techniques might also lend them-selves to measuring teamwork KSAs. Group exerciseshave been used to measure leadership and other socialskills with good success (Gaugler et al., 1987). Itis likely that existing team exercises, such as groupproblem-solving tasks, could also be modified to scoreteamwork KSAs.

Selection techniques using biodata may be anotherway to measure teamwork KSAs. Many items in biodatainstruments reflect previous life experiences of a socialnature, and recruiters interpret biodata information onapplications and resumes as reflecting attributes suchas interpersonal skills (Brown and Campion, 1994).



Table 9 Knowledge, Skill, and Ability (KSA)Requirements for Teamwork

I. Interpersonal KSAsA. Conflict Resolution KSAs

1. The KSA to recognize and encouragedesirable but discourage undesirableteam conflict.

2. The KSA to recognize the type andsource of conflict confronting the teamand to implement an appropriate conflictresolution strategy.

3. The KSA to employ an integrative(win–win) negotiation strategy rather thanthe traditional distributive (win–lose)strategy.

B. Collaborative Problem-Solving KSAs4. The KSA to identify situations requiring

participative group problem solving andto utilize the proper degree and type ofparticipation.

5. The KSA to recognize the obstacles tocollaborative group problem solving andimplement appropriate corrective actions.

C. Communication KSAs6. The KSA to understand communication

networks and to utilize decentralizednetworks to enhance communicationwhere possible.

7. The KSA to communicate openly andsupportively, that is, to send messageswhich are (a) behavior or event oriented,(b) congruent, (c) validating,(d) conjunctive, and (e) owned.

8. The KSA to listen nonevaluatively and toappropriately use active listingtechniques.

9. The KSA to maximize consonancebetween nonverbal and verbal messagesand to recognize and interpret thenonverbal messages of others.

10. The KSA to engage in ritual greetings andsmall talk and a recognition of theirimportance.

II. Self-Management KSAsD. Goal Setting and Performance Management

KSAs11. The KSA to help establish specific,

challenging, and accepted team goals.12. The KSA to monitor, evaluate, and

provide feedback on both overall teamperformance and individual team memberperformance.

E. Planning and Task Coordination KSAs13. The KSA to coordinate and synchronize

activities, information, and taskinterdependencies between teammembers.

14. The KSA to help establish task and roleexpectations of individual team membersand to ensure proper balancing ofworkload in the team.

Table 10 Example Items from the TeamworkKSA Test

1. Suppose you find yourself in an argument withseveral co workers who should do a verydisagreeable but routine task. Which of the followingwould likely be the most effective way to resolve thissituation?A. Have your supervisor decide, because this

would avoid any personal bias.*B. Arrange for a rotating schedule so everyone

shares the chore.C. Let the workers who show up earliest choose

on a first come, first served basis.D. Randomly assign a person to do the task and

don’t change it.2. Your team wants to improve the quality and flow of

the conversations among its members. Your teamshould:*A. Use comments that build upon and connect to

what others have said.B. Set up a specific order for everyone to speak

and then follow it.C. Let team members with more to say determine

the direction and topic of conversation.D. Do all of the above.

3. Suppose you are presented with the following typesof goals. You are asked to pick one for your team towork on. Which would you choose?A. An easy goal to ensure the team reaches it,

thus creating a feeling of success.B. A goal of average difficulty so the team will be

somewhat challenged but successful withouttoo much effort.

*C. A difficult and challenging goal that will stretchthe team to perform at a high level but one thatis attainable so that effort will not be seen asfutile.

D. A very difficult or even impossible goal so thateven if the team falls short, it will at least havea very high target to aim for.

Note: asterisk indicates correct answer.

A biodata measure developed to focus on teamworkKSAs might include items on teamwork in previousjobs, team experiences in school (e.g., college clubs,class projects), and recreational activities of a teamnature (e.g., sports teams and social groups).

4.3.3 Designing the Teams’ JobsThis aspect of team design involves team characteristicsderived from the motivational job design approach. Themain distinction is in level of application rather thancontent (Campion and Medsker, 1992; Shea and Guzzo,1987; Wall et al., 1986). All the job characteristics ofthe motivational approach to job design can be appliedto team design.

One such characteristic is self-management, which isthe team-level analogy to autonomy at the individual joblevel. It is central to many definitions of effective work



teams (e.g., Cummings, 1978, 1981; Hackman, 1987).A related characteristic is participation. Regardless ofmanagement involvement in decision making, teams canstill be distinguished in terms of the degree to whichall members are allowed to participate in decisions(McGrath, 1984, Porter et al., 1987). Self-managementand participation are presumed to enhance effectivenessby increasing members’ sense of responsibility andownership of the work. These characteristics mayalso enhance decision quality by increasing relevantinformation and by putting decisions as near as possibleto the point of operational problems and uncertainties.

Other important characteristics are task variety, tasksignificance, and task identity. Variety motivates byallowing members to use different skills (Hackman,1987) and by allowing both interesting and dull tasks tobe shared among members (Davis and Wacker, 1987).Task significance refers to the perceived significance ofthe consequences of the team’s work, for either othersinside the organization or its customers. Task identity(Hackman, 1987), or task differentiation (Cummings,1978), refers to the degree to which the team completesa whole and meaningful piece of work. These sug-gested characteristics of team design have been foundto be positively related to team productivity, team mem-ber satisfaction, and managers’ and employees’ judg-ments of their teams’ performance (Campion et al.,1993, 1995).

4.3.4 Developing Interdependent RelationsInterdependence is often the reason teams are formed(Mintzberg, 1979) and is a defining characteristic ofteams (Salas et al., 1992; Wall et al., 1986). Inter-dependence has been found to be related to team mem-bers’ satisfaction and team productivity and effective-ness (Campion et al., 1993, 1995).

One form of interdependence is task interdepen-dence. Team members interact and depend on oneanother to accomplish their work. Interdependencevaries across teams, depending on whether the workflow in a team is pooled, sequential, or reciprocal(Thompson, 1967). Interdependence among tasks inthe same job (Wong and Campion, 1991) or betweenjobs (Kiggundu, 1983) has been related to increasedmotivation. It can also increase team effectivenessbecause it enhances the sense of responsibility forothers’ work (Kiggundu, 1983) or because it enhancesthe reward value of a team’s accomplishments (Sheaand Guzzo, 1987).

Another form of interdependence is goal interdepen-dence. Goal setting is a well-documented, individual-level performance improvement technique (Locke andLatham, 1990). A clearly defined mission or purpose isconsidered to be critical to team effectiveness (Campionet al., 1993, 1995; Davis and Wacker, 1987; Hackman,1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990). Its importance has alsobeen shown in empirical studies on teams (e.g., Bullerand Bell, 1986; Woodman and Sherwood, 1980). Notonly should goals exist for teams, but individual mem-bers’ goals must be linked to team goals to be maximallyeffective.

Finally, interdependent feedback and rewards havealso been found to be important for team effectivenessand team member satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993,1995). Individual feedback and rewards should belinked to a team’s performance in order to motivateteam-oriented behavior. This characteristic is recognizedin many theoretical treatments (e.g., Hackman, 1987;Leventhal, 1976; Steiner, 1972; Sundstrom et al., 1990)and research studies (e.g., Pasmore et al., 1982; Wallet al., 1986).

4.3.5 Creating the Organizational Context

Organizational context and resources are consideredin all recent models of work team effectiveness (e.g.,Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987). One importantaspect of context and resources for teams is adequatetraining. Training is an extensively researched determi-nant of team performance (for reviews see Dyer, 1984;Salas et al., 1992), and training is included in most inter-ventions (e.g., Pasmore et al., 1982; Wall et al., 1986).Training is related to team members’ satisfaction andmanagers’ and employees’ judgments of their teams’effectiveness (Campion et al., 1993, 1995).

Training content often includes team philosophy,group decision making, and interpersonal skills aswell as technical knowledge. Many team-building inter-ventions focus on aspects of team functioning that arerelated to the teamwork KSAs shown in Table 9. Arecent review of this literature divided such interventionsinto four approaches (Tannenbaum et al., 1992)—goalsetting, interpersonal, role, and problem solving—whichare similar to the teamwork KSA categories. Thus, theseinterventions could be viewed as training programs onteamwork KSAs. Reviews indicate that the evidence forthe effectiveness of this training appears positive despitethe methodological limitations that plague this research(Buller and Bell, 1986; Tannenbaum et al., 1992;Woodman and Sherwood, 1980). It appears that workerscan be trained in teamwork KSAs. (See Chapter 16 formore information on team training.)

Regarding how such training should be conducted,there is substantial guidance on training teams in thehuman factors and military literatures (Dyer, 1984; Salaset al., 1992; Swezey and Salas, 1992). Because thesetopics are thoroughly addressed in the cited sources, theywill not be reviewed here.

Managers of teams also need to be trained in team-work KSAs, regardless of whether the teams are man-ager led or self-managed. The KSAs are needed forinteracting with employee teams and for participatingon management teams. It has been noted that managersof teams, especially autonomous work teams, need todevelop their employees (Cummings, 1978; Hackmanand Oldham, 1980; Manz and Sims, 1987). Thus, train-ing must ensure not only that managers possess team-work KSAs but also that they know how to trainemployees on these KSAs.

Managerial support is another contextual character-istic (Morgeson, 2005). Management controls resources(e.g., material and information) required to make teamfunctioning possible (Shea and Guzzo, 1987), and anorganization’s culture and top management must support



the use of teams (Sundstrom et al., 1992). Teachingfacilitative leadership to managers is often a feature ofteam interventions (Pasmore et al., 1982). Finally, com-munication and cooperation between teams are contex-tual characteristics because they are often the responsi-bility of managers. Supervising team boundaries (Cum-mings, 1978) and externally integrating teams with therest of the organization (Sundstrom et al., 1990) enhanceeffectiveness. Research indicates that managerial sup-port and communication and cooperation between workteams are related to team productivity and effective-ness and to team members’ satisfaction with their work(Campion et al., 1993, 1995).

4.3.6 Developing Effective Team Process

Process describes those things that go on in the groupthat influence effectiveness. One process characteristicis potency, or the belief of a team that it can be effective(Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Shea and Guzzo, 1987). Itis similar to the lay-term “team spirit.” Hackman(1987) argues that groups with high potency are morecommitted and willing to work hard for the group, andevidence indicates that potency is highly related to teammembers’ satisfaction with work, team productivity,and members’ and managers’ judgments of their teams’effectiveness (Campion et al., 1993, 1995).

Another process characteristic found to be relatedto team satisfaction, productivity, and effectiveness issocial support (Campion et al., 1993, 1995). Effective-ness can be enhanced when members help each otherand have positive social interactions. Like social facili-tation (Harkins, 1987; Zajonc, 1965), social support canbe arousing and may enhance effectiveness by sustainingeffort on mundane tasks.

Another process characteristic related to satisfaction,productivity, and effectiveness is workload sharing(Campion et al.1993, 1995). Workload sharing enhanceseffectiveness by preventing social loafing or free riding(Harkins, 1987). To enhance sharing, group membersshould believe their individual performance can bedistinguished from the group’s and that there is a linkbetween their performance and outcomes.

Finally, communication and cooperation within thework group are also important to team effectiveness,productivity, and satisfaction (Campion et al. 1993,1995). Management should help teams foster open com-munication, supportiveness, and discussions of strat-egy. Informal, rather than formal, communication chan-nels and mechanisms of control should be promoted toease coordination (Bass and Klubeck, 1952; Majchrzak,1988). Managers should encourage self-evaluation, self-observation, self-reinforcement, self-management, andself-goal setting by teams. Self-criticism for purposesof recrimination should be discouraged (Manz andSims, 1987).

Recent meta-analytic evidence suggests that numer-ous team processes are related to both team perfor-mance and member satisfaction (LePine et al., 2008).Many of these processes can be grouped into threecategories. Transition processes are team actions thatoccur after one team task has ended and before the nextbegins and include actions such as mission analysis,

goal specification, and strategy formulation/planning.Action processes are team activities that occur duringthe completion of a task. The four types of action pro-cesses include monitoring progress toward goals, sys-tems monitoring (assessing resources and environmen-tal factors that could influence goal accomplishment),team monitoring and backup behavior (team membersassisting each other in their individual tasks), and coor-dination. Finally, team activities geared toward main-taining the team’s interpersonal relationships are calledinterpersonal processes and include conflict manage-ment, motivating/confidence building, and affect man-agement (e.g., emotional balance, togetherness, and cop-ing with demands/frustrations). The results suggest thatthere are specific team processes that occur at differ-ent stages of task completion, and the occurrence, orlack thereof, of these processes has an impact on boththe teams’ performance and team members’ satisfaction(LePine et al. 2008).

5 MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATIONOF JOB AND TEAM DESIGN

The purpose of an evaluation study for either a job orteam design is to provide an objective evaluation ofsuccess and to create a tracking and feedback systemto make adjustments during the course of the designproject. An evaluation study can provide objective datato make informed decisions, help tailor the process tothe organization, and give those affected by the design orredesign an opportunity to provide input (see Morgesonand Campion, 2002). An evaluation study should includemeasures that describe the characteristics of the jobsor teams so that it can be determined whether or notjobs or teams ended up having the characteristics theywere intended to have. An evaluation study shouldalso include measures of effectiveness outcomes anorganization hoped to achieve with a design project.Measures of effectiveness could include such subjectiveoutcomes as employee job satisfaction or employee,manager, or customer perceptions of effectiveness.Measures of effectiveness should also include objectiveoutcomes such as cost, productivity, rework/scrap,turnover, accident rates, or absenteeism. Additionalinformation on measurement and evaluation of suchoutcomes can be found in Part 6 of this handbook.

5.1 Using Questionnaires to Measure Joband Team Design

One way to measure job or team design is by usingquestionnaires or checklists. This method of measuringjob or team design is highlighted because it has beenused widely in research on job design, especially onthe motivational approach. More importantly, question-naires are a very inexpensive, easy, and flexible wayto measure work design characteristics. Moreover, theygather information from job experts, such as incumbents,supervisors, and engineers and other analysts.

Several questionnaires exist for measuring the moti-vational approach to job design (Hackman and Oldham,1980; Sims et al., 1976), but only one questionnaire, the



multimethod job design questionnaire, measures char-acteristics for all four approaches to job design. Thisquestionnaire (presented in Table 2) evaluates the qualityof a job’s characteristics based on each of the fourapproaches. The team design measure (presented inTable 4) evaluates the quality of work design based onthe team approach.

Questionnaires can be administered in a variety ofways. Employees can complete them individually attheir convenience at their work station or some otherdesignated area or they can complete them in a groupsetting. Group administration allows greater standard-ization of instructions and provides the opportunity toanswer questions and clarify ambiguities. Managers andengineers can also complete the questionnaires eitherindividually or in a group session. Engineers and ana-lysts usually find that observation of the work site,examination of the equipment and procedures, and dis-cussions with any incumbents or managers are importantmethods of gaining information on the work before com-pleting the questionnaires.

Scoring for each job design approach or for eachteam characteristic on the questionnaires is usuallyaccomplished by simply averaging the applicable items.Then scores from different incumbents, managers, orengineers describing the same job or team are combinedby averaging. Multiple items and multiple respondentsare used to improve the reliability and accuracy of theresults. The implicit assumption is that slight differencesamong respondents are to be expected because oflegitimate differences in viewpoint. However, absolutedifferences in scores should be examined on an item-by-item basis, and large discrepancies (e.g., more than onepoint) should be discussed to clarify possible differencesin interpretation. It may be useful to discuss each itemuntil a consensus rating is reached.

The higher the score on a particular job design scaleor work team characteristic scale, the better the qualityof the design in terms of that approach or characteristic.Likewise, the higher the score on a particular item, thebetter the design is on that dimension. How high a scoreis needed or necessary cannot be stated in isolation.Some jobs or teams are naturally higher or lower onthe various approaches, and there may be limits to thepotential of some jobs. The scores have most value incomparing different jobs, teams, or design approaches,rather than evaluating the absolute level of the quality ofa job or team design. However, a simple rule of thumbis that if the score for an approach is smaller than 3,the job or team is poorly designed on that approach andit should be reconsidered. Even if the average score onan approach is greater than 3, examine any individualdimension scores that are at 2 or 1.

Uses of Questionnaires in Different Contexts:

1. Designing New Jobs or Teams . When jobs orteams do not yet exist, the questionnaire is usedto evaluate proposed job or team descriptions,work stations, equipment, and so on. In thisrole, it often serves as a simple design checklist.Additional administrations of the questionnairein later months or years can be used to assessthe longer term effects of the job or team design.

2. Redesigning Existing Jobs or Teams or Switch-ing from Job to Team Design. When jobs orteams already exist, there is a much greaterwealth of information. Questionnaires can becompleted by incumbents, managers, and engi-neers. Questionnaires can be used to measuredesign both before and after changes are madeto compare the redesign with the previous designapproach. A premeasure before the redesigncan be used as a baseline measurement againstwhich to compare a postmeasure conducted rightafter the redesign implementation. A follow-upmeasure can be used in later months or yearsto assess the long-term difference between theprevious design approach and the new approach.If other sites or plants with the same types ofjobs or teams are not immediately included inthe redesign but are maintained with the olderdesign approach, they can be used as a compari-son or “control group” to enable analysts to draweven stronger conclusions about the effective-ness of the redesign. Such a control group allowsone to control for the possibilities that changesin effectiveness were not due to the redesignbut were in fact due to some other causes suchas increases in workers’ knowledge and skillswith the passage of time, changes in workers’economic environment (i.e., job security, wages,etc.), or workers trying to give socially desirableresponses to questionnaire items.

3. Diagnosing Problem Job or Team Designs .When problems occur, regardless of the apparentsource of the problem, the job or team designquestionnaires can be used as a diagnosticdevice to determine if any problems exist withthe design of the jobs or teams.

5.2 Choosing Sources of Data1. Incumbents . Incumbents are probably the best

source of information for existing jobs or teams.Having input can enhance the likelihood thatchanges will be accepted, and involvement insuch decisions can enhance feelings of par-ticipation, thus increasing motivational jobdesign in itself (see item 22 of the motiva-tional scale in Table 2). One should includea large number of incumbents for each job orteam because there can be slight differences inperceptions of the same job or team due to indi-vidual differences (discussed in Section 4.1).Evidence suggests that one should include atleast five incumbents for each job or team, butmore are preferable (Campion, 1988; Campionand McClelland, 1991; Campion et al., 1993,1995).

2. Managers or Supervisors . First-level managersor supervisors may be the next most knowl-edgeable persons about an existing work design.They may also provide information on jobs orteams under development. Some differences inperceptions of the same job or team will exist



among managers, so multiple managers shouldbe used.

3. Engineers or Analysts . Engineers may be theonly source of information if the jobs or teamsare not yet developed. But also for existingjobs or teams, an outside perspective of anengineer, analyst, or consultant may provide amore objective viewpoint. Again, there can bedifferences among engineers, so several shouldevaluate each job or team.

It is desirable to get multiple inputs and perspectivesfrom different sources in order to get the most reliableand accurate picture of the results of the job or teamdesign.

5.3 Long-Term Effects and Potential Biases

It is important to recognize that some effects of jobor team design may not be immediate, others may notbe long lasting, and still others may not be obvious.Initially, when jobs or teams are designed, or right afterthey are redesigned, there may be a short-term period ofpositive attitudes (often called a “honeymoon effect”).As the legendary Hawthorne studies indicated, changesin jobs or increased attention paid to workers tends tocreate novel stimulation and positive attitudes (Mayo,1933). Such transitory elevations in affect should notbe mistaken for long-term improvements in satisfaction,as they may wear off over time. In fact, with time,employees may realize their work is now more complexand should be paid higher compensation (Campion andBerger, 1990).

Costs which are likely to lag in time also includestress and fatigue, which may take a while to buildup if mental demands have been increased excessively.Boredom may take a while to set in if mental demandshave been overly decreased. In terms of lagged benefits,productivity and quality are likely to improve withpractice and learning on the new job or team. Andsome benefits, like reduced turnover, simply take timeto estimate accurately.

Benefits which may potentially dissipate with timeinclude satisfaction, especially if the elevated satisfac-tion is a function of novelty rather than basic changes tothe motivating value of the work. Short-term increasesin productivity due to heightened effort rather than bet-ter design may not last. Costs which may dissipateinclude training requirements and staffing difficulties.Once jobs are staffed and everyone is trained, thesecosts disappear until turnover occurs. So these costswill not go away completely, but they may be less afterinitial start-up. Dissipating heightened satisfaction butlong-term increases in productivity were observed in amotivational job redesign study conducted by Griffin(1991). These are only examples to illustrate how dissi-pating and lagged effects might occur. A more detailedexample of long-term effects is given in Section 5.8.

A potential bias which may confuse the proper eval-uation of benefits and costs is spillover. Laboratoryresearch has shown that the job satisfaction of employ-ees can bias perceptions of the motivational value of

their jobs (O’Reilly et al., 1980). Likewise, the level ofmorale in the organization can have a spillover effectonto employees’ perceptions of job or team design. Ifmorale is particularly high, it may have an elevatingeffect on how employees or analysts view the jobs orteams; conversely, low morale may have a depressingeffect on views. The term morale refers to the generallevel of job satisfaction across employees, and it maybe a function of many factors, including management,working conditions, and wages. Another factor whichhas an especially strong effect on employee reactions towork design changes is employment security . Obviously,employee enthusiasm for work design changes will benegative if they view them as potentially decreasing theirjob security. Every effort should be made to eliminatethese fears. The best method of addressing these effectsis to be attentive to their potential existence and to con-duct longitudinal evaluations of job and team design.

In addition to questionnaires, many other analyticaltools are useful for work design. The disciplines thatcontributed the different approaches to work design havealso contributed different techniques for analyzing tasks,jobs, and processes for design and redesign purposes.These techniques include job analysis methods createdby specialists in industrial psychology, variance analysismethods created by specialists in sociotechnical design,time-and-motion analysis methods created by specialistsin industrial engineering, and linkage analysis methodscreated by specialists in human factors. This sectionbriefly describes a few of these techniques to illustratethe range of options. The reader is referred to thecitations for detail on how to use the techniques.

5.4 Job AnalysisJob analysis can be broadly defined as a number ofsystematic techniques for collecting and making judg-ments about job information (Morgeson and Campion,1997, 2000). Information derived from job analysis canbe used to aid in recruitment and selection decisions,determine training and development needs, develop per-formance appraisal systems, and evaluate jobs for com-pensation as well as analyze tasks and jobs for jobdesign. Job analysis may also focus on tasks, workercharacteristics, worker functions, work fields, workingconditions, tools and methods, products and services,and so on. Job analysis data can come from job incum-bents, supervisors, and analysts who specialize in theanalysis of jobs. Data may also be provided by highermanagement levels or subordinates in some cases.

Considerable literature has been published on thetopic of job analysis (Ash et al., 1983; Dierdorff andWilson, 2003; Gael, 1983; Harvey, 1991; Morgeson andCampion, 1997; Morgeson et al., 2004; Peterson et al.,2001; U.S. Department of Labor, 1972). Some of themore typical methods of analysis are briefly describedbelow:

1. Conferences and Interviews . Conferences orinterviews with job experts, such as incumbentsand supervisors, are often the first step. Duringsuch meetings, information collected typicallyincludes job duties and tasks, KSAs, and otherworker characteristics.



2. Questionnaires . Questionnaires are used to col-lect information efficiently from a large numberof people. Questionnaires require considerableprior knowledge of the job to form the basis ofthe items (e.g., primary tasks). Often this infor-mation is first collected through conferences andinterviews, and then the questionnaire is con-structed and used to collect judgments about thejob (e.g., importance and time spent on eachtask). Some standardized questionnaires havebeen developed which can be applied to alljobs to collect basic information on tasks andrequirements. Examples of standardized ques-tionnaires are the position analysis question-naire (McCormick et al., 1972) and the Occupa-tional Information Network (O*NET; Petersonet al., 2001).

3. Inventories . Inventories are much like ques-tionnaires, except they are simpler in format.They are usually simple checklists where the jobexpert checks whether a task is performed or anattribute is required.

4. Critical Incidents . This form of job analysisfocuses only on aspects of worker behaviorwhich are especially effective or ineffective.

5. Work Observation and Activity Sampling . Quiteoften job analysis includes the actual obser-vation of work performed. More sophisticatedtechnologies involve statistical sampling ofwork activities.

6. Diaries . Sometimes it is useful or necessary tocollect data by having the employee keep a diaryof activities on his or her job.

7. Functional Job Analysis . Task statements can bewritten in a standardized fashion. Functional jobanalysis suggests how to write task statements(e.g., start with a verb, be as simple and discreteas possible). It also involves rating jobs on thedegree of data, people, and things requirements.This form of job analysis was developed by theU.S. Department of Labor and has been usedto describe over 12,000 jobs as documented inthe Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Fine andWiley, 1971; U.S. Department of Labor, 1977).

Very limited research has been done to evaluatethe practicality and quality of various job analysismethods for different purposes. But analysts seem toagree that combinations of methods are preferable tosingle methods (Levine et al., 1983; Morgeson andCampion, 1997).

Current approaches to job analysis do not givemuch attention to analyzing teams. For example, theDictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Departmentof Labor, 1972) considers “people” requirements ofjobs but does not address specific teamwork KSAs.Likewise, recent reviews of the literature mention somecomponents of teamwork such as communication andcoordination (e.g., Harvey, 1991) but give little attentionto other teamwork KSAs. Thus, job analysis systemsmay need to be revised. The recent O*NET reflects a

major new job analysis system designed to replace theDictionary of Titles (Peterson et al., 2001). Althoughnot explicitly addressing the issue of teamwork KSAs, itdoes contain a large number of worker attribute domainsthat may prove useful. Teamwork KSAs are more likelyto emerge with conventional approaches to job analysisbecause of their unstructured nature (e.g., interviews),but structured approaches (e.g., questionnaires) willhave to be modified to query about teamwork KSAs.

5.5 Other ApproachesVariance analysis is a tool used to identify areas oftechnological uncertainty in a production process (Davisand Wacker, 1982). It aids the organization in designingjobs to allow job holders to control the variability intheir work. See Chapters 12 and 13 in this handbookfor more information on task and workload analysis.

Industrial engineers have also created many tech-niques to help job designers visualize operations in orderto improve efficiencies, which has led to the develop-ment of a considerable literature on the topic of time-and-motion analysis (e.g., Mundel, 1985; Niebel, 1988).Some of these techniques are process charts (graphicallyrepresent separate steps or events that occur during per-formance of a task or series of actions); flow diagrams(utilize drawings of an area or building in which anactivity takes place and use lines, symbols, and nota-tions to help designers visualize the physical layout ofthe work); possibility guides (tools for systematicallylisting all possible changes suggested for a particularactivity or output, and examine the consequences of sug-gestions to aid in selecting the most feasible changes);and network diagrams (describe complex relationships,where a circle or square represents a “status,” a partialor complete service, or substantive output; heavy linesrepresent “critical paths,” which determine the minimumexpected completion time for a project).

Linkage analysis is another technique used byhuman factors specialists to represent relationships(i.e., “links”) between components (i.e., people orthings) in a work system (Sanders and McCormick,1987). Designers of physical work arrangements usetools (i.e., link tables, adjacency layout diagrams, andspatial operational sequences) to represent relationshipsbetween components in order to better understand howto arrange components to minimize the distance betweenfrequent or important links.

5.6 Example of an Evaluation of a Job DesignStudies conducted by Campion and McClelland (1991,1993) are described as an illustration of an evaluationof a job redesign project. They illustrate the value ofconsidering an interdisciplinary perspective. The settingwas a large financial services company. The units understudy processed the paperwork in support of otherunits that sold the company’s products. Jobs had beendesigned in a mechanistic manner such that individualemployees prepared, sorted, coded, and computer inputthe paper flow.

The organization viewed the jobs as too mechanisti-cally designed. Guided by the motivational approach, theproject intended to enlarge jobs by combining existing



jobs in order to attain three objectives: (1) enhancemotivation and satisfaction of employees, (2) increaseincumbent feelings of ownership of the work, thusincreasing customer service, and (3) maintain pro-ductivity in spite of potential lost efficiencies fromthe motivational approach. The consequences of allapproaches to job design were considered. It was antic-ipated that the project would increase motivational con-sequences, decrease mechanistic and perceptual/motorconsequences, and have no effect on biological conse-quences (Table 1).

The evaluation consisted of collecting detailed dataon job design and a broad spectrum of potentialbenefits and costs of enlarged jobs. The research strategyinvolved comparing several varieties of enlarged jobswith each other and with unenlarged jobs. Questionnairedata were collected and focused team meetings wereconducted with incumbents, managers, and analysts. Thestudy was repeated at five different geographic sites.

Results indicated enlarged jobs had the benefitsof more employee satisfaction, less boredom, betterquality, and better customer service, but they alsohad the costs of slightly higher training, skill, andcompensation requirements. Another finding was thatall potential costs of enlarging jobs were not observed,suggesting that redesign can lead to benefits withoutincurring every cost in a one-to-one fashion.

In a two-year follow-up evaluation study, it wasfound that the costs and benefits of job enlargementchanged substantially over time, depending on thetype of enlargement. Task enlargement, which was thefocus of the original study, had mostly long-term costs(e.g., lower satisfaction, efficiency, and customer serviceand more mental overload and errors). Conversely,knowledge enlargement, which emerged as a form ofjob design since the original study, had mostly benefits(e.g., higher satisfaction and customer service and loweroverload and errors).

There are several important implications of the latterstudy. First, it illustrates that the long-term effects ofjob design changes can be different than the short-termeffects. Second, it shows the classic distinction betweenenlargement and enrichment (Herzberg, 1966) in thatsimply adding more tasks did not improve the job,but adding more knowledge opportunities did. Third,it illustrates how the job design process is iterative. Inthis setting, the more favorable knowledge enlargementwas discovered only after gaining experience with taskenlargement. Fourth, as in the previous study, it showsthat it is possible in some situations to gain benefits ofjob design without incurring all the potential costs, thusminimizing the trade-offs between the motivational andmechanistic approaches to job design.

5.7 Example of an Evaluation of a TeamDesign

Studies conducted by the authors and their colleaguesare described here as an illustration of an evaluationof a team design project (Campion et al., 1993, 1995).They illustrate the use of multiple sources of data andmultiple types of team effectiveness outcomes. Thesetting was the same financial services company as in

the example job design evaluation above. Questionnairesbased on Table 4 were administered to 391 clericalemployees in 80 teams and 70 team managers in the firststudy (Campion et al., 1993) and to 357 professionalworkers in 60 teams (e.g., systems analysts, claimsspecialists, underwriters) and 93 managers in the secondstudy (Campion et al., 1996) to measure teams’ designcharacteristics. Thus, two sources of data were used,team members and team managers, to measure the teamdesign characteristics.

In both studies, effectiveness outcomes includedthe organization’s employee satisfaction survey, whichhad been administered at a different time than theteam design characteristics questionnaire, and managers’judgments of teams’ effectiveness, measured at the sametime as the team design characteristics. In the first study,several months of records of team productivity werealso used to measure effectiveness. Additional effec-tiveness measures in the second study were employees’judgments of their team’s effectiveness, measured at thesame time as the team design characteristics, managers’judgments of teams’ effectiveness, measured a secondtime three months after the team design characteristics,and the average of team members’ most recent perfor-mance ratings.

Results indicated that all of the team design char-acteristics had positive relationships with at least someof the outcomes. Relationships were strongest for pro-cess characteristics, followed by job design, context,interdependence, and composition characteristics (seeFigure 1). Results also indicated that when teams werewell designed according to the team design approach,they were higher on both employee satisfaction and teameffectiveness ratings than less well designed teams.

Results were stronger when the team design char-acteristics data were from team members, rather thanfrom the team managers. This illustrates the importanceof collecting data from different sources to gain differentperspectives on the results of a team design project. Col-lecting data from only a single source may lead one todraw different conclusions about a design project than ifone obtains a broader picture of the team design resultsfrom multiple sources.

Results were also stronger when outcome measurescame from employees (employee satisfaction, teammember judgments of their teams), managers ratingtheir own teams, or productivity records, than whenthey came from other managers or from performanceappraisal ratings. This illustrates the use of differenttypes of outcome measures to avoid drawing con-clusions from overly limited data. This example alsoillustrates the use of separate data collection methodsand times for collecting team design characteristics dataversus team outcomes data. A single data collectionmethod and time in which team design characteristicsand outcomes are collected from the same source(e.g., team members only) on the same day can createan illusion of higher relationships between designcharacteristics and outcomes than really exist. Althoughit is more costly to use multiple sources, methods, andadministration times, the ability to draw conclusionsfrom the results is far stronger if one does.



REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organi-zation, Wiley, New York.

Ash, R. A., Levine, E. L., and Sistrunk, F. (1983), “The Roleof Jobs and Job-Based Methods in Personnel and HumanResources Management,” in Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management , Vol. 1, K. M. Rowlandand G. R. Ferris, Eds., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Astrand, P. O., and Rodahl, K. (1977), Textbook of WorkPhysiology: Physiological Bases of Exercise, 2nd ed.,McGraw-Hill, New York.

Babbage, C. (1835), “On the Economy of Machinery andManufacturers,” reprinted in Design of Jobs , 2nd ed.,L. E. Davis and J. C. Taylor, Eds., Goodyear, SantaMonica, CA.

Banker, R. D., Field, J. M., Schroeder, R. G., and Sinha, K. K.(1996), “Impact of Work Teams on Manufacturing Perfor-mance: A Longitudinal Study,” Academy of ManagementJournal , Vol. 39, pp. 867–890.

Bass, B. M., and Klubeck, S. (1952), “Effects of Seating Ar-rangements and Leaderless Team Discussions,” Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology , Vol. 47, pp. 724–727.

Blauner, R. (1964), Alienation and Freedom , University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Brown, B. K., and Campion, M. A. (1994), “Biodata Phe-nomenology: Recruiters’ Perceptions and Use of Bio-graphical Information in Personnel Selection,” Journal ofApplied Psychology , Vol. 79, pp. 897–908.

Buller, P. F., and Bell, C. H. (1986), “Effects of Team Buildingand Goal Setting on Productivity: A Field Experiment,”Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 29, pp. 305–328.

Buys, C. J. (1978), “Humans Would Do Better withoutGroups,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,Vol. 4, pp. 123–125.

Campion, M. A. (1988), “Interdisciplinary Approaches to JobDesign: A Constructive Replication with Extensions,”Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 73, pp. 467–481.

Campion, M. A. (1989), “Ability Requirement Implications ofJob Design: An Interdisciplinary Perspective,” PersonnelPsychology , Vol. 42, pp. 1–24.

Campion, M. A., and Berger, C. J. (1990), “Conceptual Inte-gration and Empirical Test of Job Design and Com-pensation Relationships,” Personnel Psychology , Vol. 43,pp. 525–554.

Campion, M. A., and McClelland, C. L. (1991), “Interdisci-plinary Examination of the Costs and Benefits of En-larged Jobs: A Job Design Quasi-Experiment,” Journalof Applied Psychology , Vol. 76, pp. 186–198.

Campion, M. A., and McClelland, C. L. (1993), “Follow-up andExtension of the Interdisciplinary Costs and Benefits ofEnlarged Jobs,” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 78,pp. 339–351.

Campion, M. A., and Medsker, G. J. (1992), “Job Design,” inHandbook of Industrial Engineering , G. Salvendy, Eds.,Wiley, New York.

Campion, M. A., and Stevens, M. J. (1991), “Neglected Ques-tions in Job Design: How People Design Jobs, Influenceof Training, and Task-Job Predictability,” Journal of Busi-ness and Psychology , Vol. 6, pp. 169–191.

Campion, M. A., and Thayer, P. W. (1985), “Developmentand Field Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Measure ofJob Design,” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 70,pp. 29–43.

Campion, M. A., and Thayer, P. W. (1987), “Job Design:Approaches, Outcomes, and Trade-offs,” OrganizationalDynamics , Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 66–79.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, A. C. (1993),“Relations between Work Group Characteristics andEffectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective WorkGroups,” Personnel Psychology , Vol. 46, pp. 823–850.

Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., and Hudson, J. P. (1994a),“Structured Interviewing: A Note on Incremental Validityand Alternative Question Types,” Journal of AppliedPsychology , Vol. 79, pp. 998–1002.

Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., and Stevens, M. J. (1994b),“Job Rotation and Career Development: Career-RelatedAntecedents and Outcomes of Job Rotation,” Academy ofManagement Journal , Vol. 37, pp. 1518–1542.

Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., and Medsker, G. J. (1996),“Relations between Work Team Characteristics and Effec-tiveness: A Replication and Extension,” Personnel Psy-chology , Vol. 49, pp. 429–452.

Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Van Harrison, R.,and Pinneau, S. R. (1975), “Job Demands and WorkerHealth: Main Effects and Occupational Differences,”HEW Publication No. NIOSH 75-160, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC.

Cartwright, D. (1968), “The Nature of Team Cohesiveness,” inTeam Dynamics: Research and Theory , D. Cartwright andA. Zander, Eds., 3rd ed., Harper & Row, New York.

Chapanis, A. (1970), “Relevance of Physiological and Psycho-logical Criteria to Man-Machine Systems: The PresentState of the Art,” Ergonomics , Vol. 13, pp. 337–346.

Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979), Quasi-Exper-imentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings ,Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.

Cummings, T. G. (1978), “Self-Regulating Work Teams: A So-ciotechnical Synthesis,” Academy of ManagementReview , Vol. 3, pp. 625–634.

Cummings, T. G. (1981), “Designing Effective Work Groups,”in Handbook of Organization Design, Vol. 2., P. C.Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck, Eds., Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Davis, L. E. (1957), “Toward a Theory of Job Design,” Journalof Industrial Engineering , Vol. 8, pp. 305–309.

Davis, L. E. (1971), “The Coming Crisis for Production Man-agement: Technology and Organization,” InternationalJournal of Production Research, Vol. 9, pp. 65–82.

Davis, L. E. (1982), “Organization Design,” in Handbook ofIndustrial Engineering , G. Salvendy, Eds., Wiley, NewYork.

Davis, L. E., and Taylor, J. C. (1979), Design of Jobs , 2nd ed.,Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA.

Davis, L. E., and Valfer, E. S. (1965), “Intervening Responsesto Changes in Supervisor Job Design,” OccupationalPsychology , Vol. 39, pp. 171–189.

Davis, L. E., and Wacker, G. L. (1982), “Job Design,” inHandbook of Industrial Engineering , G. Salvendy, Eds.,Wiley, New York.

Davis, L. E., and Wacker, G. L. (1987), “Job Design,” InHandbook of Human Factors , G. Salvendy, Eds., Wiley,New York.

Davis, L. E., Canter, R. R., and Hoffman, J. (1955), “CurrentJob Design Criteria,” Journal of Industrial Engineering ,Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 5–8, 21–23.



Dierdorff, E. C., and Wilson, M. A. (2003), “A Meta-Analysis of Job Analysis Reliability,” Journal of AppliedPsychology , Vol. 88, pp. 635–646.

Dyer, J. (1984), “Team Research and Team Training: A State-of-the-Art Review,” In Human Factors Review , F. A.Muckler, Ed., Human Factors Society, Santa Monica,CA.

Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., and Brtek, M. D. (1999), “TheMeasurement of Work: Hierarchical Representation ofthe Multimethod Job Design Questionnaire,” PersonnelPsychology , Vol. 52, pp. 305–334.

Edwards, J. R., Scully, J. A., and Brtek, M. D. (2000),“The Nature and Outcomes of Work: A Replication andExtension of Interdisciplinary Work-Design Research,”Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 85, pp. 860–868.

Emory, F. E., and Trist, E. L. (1960), “Sociotechnical Systems,”in Management Sciences, Models, and Techniques , Vol. 2,C. W. Churchman and M. Verhulst, Eds., Pergamon,London.

Fine, S. A., and Wiley, W. W. (1971), An Introduction toFunctional Job Analysis , W. E. Upjohn Institute forEmployment Research, Kalamazoo, MI.

Ford, R. N. (1969), Motivation through the Work Itself ,American Management Association, New York.

Fried, Y., and Ferris, G. R. (1987), “The Validity of theJob Characteristics Model: A Review and Metaanalysis,”Personnel Psychology , Vol. 40, pp. 287–322.

Gael, S. (1983), Job Analysis: A Guide to Assessing WorkActivities , Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Gallagher, C. C., and Knight, W. A. (1986), Team TechnologyProduction Methods in Manufacture, Ellis Horwood,Chichester.

Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., and Benston,C. (1987), “Metaanalysis of Assessment Center Validity(Monograph),” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 72,pp. 493–511.

Gilbreth, F. B. (1911), Motion Study: A Method for Increasingthe Efficiency of the Workman, Van Nostrand, New York.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984), “Groups in Context: A Model of TaskGroup Effectiveness,” Administrative Science Quarterly ,Vol. 29, pp. 499–517.

Globerson, S., and Crossman, E. R. (1976), “NonrepetitiveTime: An Objective Index of Job Variety,” Organi-zational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 17,pp. 231–240.

Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., and Argote, L. (1986), “CurrentThinking about Teams: Setting the Stage for New Ideas,”in Designing Effective Work Teams , P. S. Goodman andAssociates, Eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Grandjean, E. (1980), Fitting the Tasks to the Man: An Ergo-nomic Approach, Taylor & Francis, London.

Grant, A. M. (2007), “Relational Job Design and the Motivationto Make a Prosocial Difference,” Academy of Manage-ment Review , Vol. 32, pp. 393–417.

Grant, A. M. (2008), “The Significance of Task Significance:Job Performance Effects, Relational Mechanisms, andBoundary Conditions,” Journal of Applied Psychology ,Vol. 93, pp. 108–124.

Grant, A. M., and Parker, S. K. (2009), “Redesigning WorkDesign Theories: The Rise of Relational and ProactivePerspectives,” The Academy of Management Annals , Vol.3, pp. 317–375.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis,D., and Lee, K. (2007), “Impact and the Art of MotivationMaintenance: The Effects of Contact with Beneficiarieson Persistence Behavior,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes , Vol. 103, pp. 53–67.

Griffin, R. W. (1982), Task Design: An Integrative Approach ,Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Griffin, R. W. (1991), “Effects of Work Redesign on EmployeePerceptions, Attitudes, and Behaviors –A Long-TermInvestigation,” Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 34,pp. 425–435.

Guzzo, R. A., and Shea, G. P. (1992), “Group Performanceand Intergroup Relations in Organizations,” in Handbookof Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Vol. 3,M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, Eds., ConsultingPsychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Hackman, J. R. (1987), “The Design of Work Teams,” inHandbook of Organizational Behavior , J. Lorsch, Eds.,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hackman, J. R. (2002), Leading Teams: Setting the Stagefor Great Performances , Harvard Business School Press,Boston.

Hackman, J. R., and Oldham, G. R. (1980), Work Redesign,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hammond, R. W. (1971), “The History and Developmentof Industrial Engineering,” in Industrial EngineeringHandbook , 3rd ed., H. B. Maynard, Eds., McGraw-Hill,New York.

Harkins, S. G. (1987), “Social Loafing and Social Facilitation,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 23,pp. 1–18.

Harvey, R. J. (1991), “Job Analysis,” in Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology , 2nd ed., Vol.2, M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough, Eds., ConsultingPsychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World,Cleveland, OH.

Hoerr, J. (1989), “The Payoff from Teamwork,” Business Week ,July 10, pp. 56–62.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences , Sage, BeverlyHills, CA.

Homans, G. C. (1950), The Human Group, Harcourt, Brace,and World, New York.

Hoppock, R. (1935), Job Satisfaction, Harper and Row,New York.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., and Glaser, J. (2008), “Cre-ating Flexible Work Arrangements through Idiosyn-cratic Deals,” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 93,pp. 655–664.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P. (2007),“Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual WorkDesign Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theo-retical Extension of the Work Design Literature,” Journalof Applied Psychology , Vol. 92, pp. 1332–1356.

Hyer, N. L. (1984), “Management’s Guide to Team Technol-ogy,” in Team Technology at Work , N. L. Hyer, Ed.,Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, MI.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., and Jundt,D. (2005), “Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models,” Annual Review ofPsychology , Vol. 56, pp. 517–543.

Janis, I. L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink , Houghton-Mifflin,Boston.



Johansson, G., Aronsson, G., and Lindstrom, B. O. (1978),“Social Psychological and Neuroendocrine Stress Reac-tions in Highly Mechanized Work,” Ergonomics, Vol. 21,pp. 583–599.

Kelly, J. (1982), Scientific Management, Job Redesign, andWork Performance, Academic, London.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983), “Task Interdependence and JobDesign: Test of a Theory,” Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 145–172.

Konz, S. (1983), Work Design: Industrial Ergonomics , 2nd ed.,Grid, Columbus, OH.

Lawler, E. E. (1986), High-Involvement Management: Partic-ipative Strategies for Improving Organizational Perfor-mance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E.,and Saul, J. R. (2008), “A Meta-Analysis of TeamworkProcesses: Tests of a Multidimensional Model and Rela-tionships with Team Effectiveness Criteria,” PersonnelPsychology , Vol. 61, pp. 273–307.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976), “The Distribution of Rewards andResources in Teams and Organizations,” in Advances inExperimental Social Psychology , Vol. 9, L. Berkowitz andE. Walster, Eds., Academic, New York.

Levine, E. L., Ash, R. A., Hall, H., and Sistrunk, F. (1983),“Evaluation of Job Analysis Methods by Experienced JobAnalysts,” Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 26,pp. 339–348.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (1990), A Theory of GoalSetting and Task Performance, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Majchrzak, A. (1988), The Human Side of Factory Automation ,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. (1987), “Leading Workers to LeadThemselves: The External Leadership of Self-ManagingWork Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 32,pp. 106–129.

Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an IndustrialCivilization, Macmillan, New York.

McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., and Mecham, R. C. (1972),“A Study of Job Characteristics and Job Dimensions asBased on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ),”Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 56, pp. 347–368.

McGrath, J. E. (1984), Teams: Interaction and Performance,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Meister, D. (1971), Human Factors: Theory and Practice,Wiley, New York.

Milkovich, G. T., and Newman, J. M. (1993), Compensation,4th ed., Business Publications, Homewood, IL.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations: ASynthesis of the Research, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005), “The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Noveland Disruptive Events,” Journal of Applied Psychology ,Vol. 90, pp. 497–508.

Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (1997), “Socialand Cognitive Sources of Potential Inaccuracy in JobAnalysis,” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 82,pp. 627–655.

Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2000), “Accuracy in JobAnalysis: Toward an Inference-Based Model,” Journal ofOrganizational Behavior , Vol. 21, pp. 819–827.

Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2002), “MinimizingTradeoffs When Redesigning Work: Evidence from aLongitudinal Quasi-Experiment,” Personnel Psychology ,Vol. 55, pp. 589–612.

Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2003), “Work Design,”in Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology , Vol. 12, W. C. Borman, D. R.Ilgen, and R. J. Klimoski, Eds., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ,pp. 423–452.

Morgeson, F. P., and Humphrey, S. E. (2006), “The WorkDesign Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and Validatinga Comprehensive Measure for Assessing Job Design andthe Nature of Work,” Journal of Applied Psychology ,Vol. 91, pp. 1321–1339.

Morgeson, F. P., Aiman-Smith, L. D., and Campion, M. A.(1997), “Implementing Work Teams: Recommendationsfrom Organizational Behavior and Development Theo-ries,” in Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of WorkTeams: Issues in the Implementation of Work Teams ,Vol. 4, M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, and S. Beyerlein, Eds.,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1–44.

Morgeson, F. P., Dierdorff, E. C., and Hmurovic, J. L.(2010), “Work Design In Situ: Understanding the Roleof Occupational and Organizational Context,” Journal ofOrganizational Behavior , Vol. 31, pp. 351–360.

Morgeson, F. P., Delaney-Klinger, K. A., Mayfield, M. S., Fer-rara, P., and Campion, M. A. (2004), “Self-PresentationProcesses in Job Analysis: A Field Experiment Investi-gating Inflation in Abilities, Tasks, and Competencies,”Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 89, pp. 674–686.

Mundel, M. E. (1985), Motion and Time Study: ImprovingProductivity , 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ.

Niebel, B. W. (1988), Motion and Time Study , 8th ed., Irwin,Homewood, IL.

O’Reilly, C., Parlette, G., and Bloom, J. (1980), “PerceptualMeasures of Task Characteristics: The Biasing Effectsof Differing Frames of Reference and Job Attitudes,”Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 23, pp. 118–131.

O’Reilly, C. A., and Roberts, K. H. (1977), “Task Group Struc-ture, Communication, and Effectiveness,” Journal ofApplied Psychology , Vol. 62, pp. 674–681.

Parker, S. K. (2003), “Longitudinal Effects of Lean Productionon Employee Outcomes and the Mediating Role of WorkCharacteristics,” Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 88,pp. 620–634.

Pasmore, W., Francis, C., and Haldeman, J. (1982), “Sociotech-nical Systems: A North American Reflection on Empiri-cal Studies of the Seventies,” Human Relations , Vol. 35,pp. 1179–1204.

Pasmore, W. A. (1988), Designing Effective Organizations: TheSociotechnical Systems Perspective, Wiley, New York.

Pearson, R. G. (1971), “Human Factors Engineering,” in Indus-trial Engineering Handbook , 3rd. ed., H. B. Maynard,Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Perkins, A. L., and Abramis, D. J. (1990), “Midwest FederalCorrectional Institution,” in Groups That Work (andThose That Don’t ), J. R. Hackman, Ed., Jossey-Bass, SanFrancisco.

Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret,P. R., Fleishman, E. A., Campion, M. A., Levin, K. Y.,Mayfield, M. S., Morgeson, F. P., Pearlman, K., Gowing,



M. K., Lancaster, A., and Dye, D. (2001), “Understand-ing Work Using the Occupational Information Network(O*NET): Implications for Practice and Research,” Per-sonnel Psychology , Vol. 54, pp. 451–492.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., and Hackman, J. R. (1987),“Ways Teams Influence Individual Work Effectiveness,”in Motivation and Work Behavior , 4th ed., R. M. Steersand L. W. Porter, Eds., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., and Campion, M. A. (2002),“Beyond Employment Interview Validity: A Comprehen-sive Narrative Review of Recent Research and Trendsover Time,” Personnel Psychology , Vol. 55, pp. 1–81.

Rousseau, D. M. (1977), “Technological Differences in JobCharacteristics, Employee Satisfaction, and Motivation:A Synthesis of Job Design Research and SociotechnicalSystems Theory,” Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, Vol. 19, pp. 18–42.

Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., and Greenberg, J. (2006),“I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Terms in Employment Rela-tionships,” Academy of Management Review , Vol. 31,pp. 977–994.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., and Tannenbaum,S. I. (1992), “Toward an Understanding of Team Per-formance and Training,” in Teams: Their Training andPerformance, R. W. Swezey and E. Salas, Eds., Ablex,Norwood, NJ.

Salvendy, G., Ed. (1987), Handbook of Human Factors , Wiley,New York.

Salvendy, G., and Smith, M. J., Eds. (1981), Machine Pacingand Occupational Stress , Taylor & Francis, London.

Sanders, M. S., and McCormick, E. J. (1987), HumanFactors in Engineering and Design, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.

Shaw, M. E. (1983), “Team Composition,” in Small Teams andSocial Interaction, Vol. 1, H. H. Blumberg, A. P. Hare,V. Kent, and M. Davies, Eds., Wiley, New York.

Shea, G. P., and Guzzo, R. A. (1987), “Teams as HumanResources,” in Research in Personnel and HumanResources , Vol. 5., K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris, Eds.,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., and Keller, R. T. (1976),“The Measurement of Job Characteristics,” Academy ofManagement Journal , Vol. 19, pp. 195–212.

Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes ofthe Wealth of Nations , reprinted by R. H. Campbell andA. S. Skinner, Eds., Liberty Classics, Indianapolis, IN.

Staw, B. M., and Boettger, R. D. (1990), “Task Revision:A Neglected Form of Work Performance,” Academy ofManagement Journal , Vol. 33, pp. 534–559.

Steers, R. M., and Mowday, R. T. (1977), “The MotivationalProperties of Tasks,” Academy of Management Review ,Vol. 2, pp. 645–658.

Steiner, I. D. (1972), Group Process and Productivity , Aca-demic, New York.

Stevens, M. J., and Campion, M. A. (1994a), “StaffingTeams: Development and Validation of the Teamwork-KSA Test,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Nashville, TN.

Stevens, M. J., and Campion, M. A. (1994b), “The Knowledge,Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Impli-cations for Human Resource Management,” Journal ofManagement , Vol. 20, pp. 503–530.

Stevens, M. J., and Campion, M. A. (1999), “Staffing WorkTeams: Development and Validation of a Selection Testfor Teamwork Settings,” Journal of Management , Vol. 25,pp. 207–228.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., and Futrell, D. (1990),“Work Teams: Applications and Effectiveness,” AmericanPsychologist , Vol. 45, pp. 120–133.

Swezey, R. W., and Salas, E. (1992), Teams: Their Trainingand Performance, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., and Salas, E. (1992),“Team Building and Its Influence on Team Effectiveness:An Examination of Conceptual and Empirical Devel-opments,” in Issues, Theory, and Research in Industrialand Organizational Psychology , K. Kelley, Eds., Elsevier,Amsterdam.

Taylor, F. W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management ,Norton, New York.

Taylor, J. C. (1979), “Job Design Criteria Twenty Years Later,”in Design of Jobs , 2nd ed., L. E. Davis and J. C. Taylor,Eds., Wiley, New York.

Thompson, J. D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Tichauer, E. R. (1978), The Biomechanical Basis of Ergo-nomics: Anatomy Applied to the Design of Work Situa-tions , Wiley, New York.

Turnage, J. J. (1990), “The Challenge of New WorkplaceTechnology for Psychology,” American Psychologist ,Vol. 45, pp. 171–178.

Turner, A. N., and Lawrence, P. R. (1965), IndustrialJobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Response toTask Attributes , Harvard Graduate School of BusinessAdministration, Boston, MA.

U.S. Department of Labor (1972), Handbook for AnalyzingJobs , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Labor (1977), Dictionary of OccupationalTitles , 4th ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1981), “Guidelines forControl Room Design Reviews,” NUREG 0700, NuclearRegulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York.Walker, C. R., and Guest, R. H. (1952), The Man on the As-

sembly Line, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Wall, T. B., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., and Clegg, C. W.

(1986), “Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment,” Academy of Management Jour-nal , Vol. 29, pp. 280–304.

Warr, P., and Wall, T. (1975), Work and Well-being , Penguin,Harmondsworth, MD.

Weber, A., Fussler, C., O’Hanlon, J. F., Gierer, R., andGrandjean, E. (1980), “Psychophysiological Effects ofRepetitive Tasks,” Ergonomics , Vol. 23, pp. 1033–1046.

Welford, A. T. (1976), Skilled Performance: Perceptual andMotor Skills , Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Wicker, A., Kirmeyer, S. L., Hanson, L., and Alexander,D. (1976), “Effects of Manning Levels on Subjec-tive Experiences, Performance, and Verbal Interaction inGroups,” Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, Vol. 17, pp. 251–274.

Wilson, J. R., and Haines, H. M. (1997), “ParticipatoryErgonomics,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Erg-onomics , 2nd ed., G. Salvendy, Ed., Wiley, New York.



Wong, C. S. (1989), “Task Interdependence: The Link betweenTask Design and Job Design,” Doctoral Dissertation,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Wong, C. S., and Campion, M. A. (1991), “Development andTest of a Task Level Model of Job Design,” Journal ofApplied Psychology , Vol. 76, pp. 825–837.

Woodman, R. W., and Sherwood, J. J. (1980), “The Roleof Team Development in Organizational Effectiveness.A Critical Review,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88,pp. 166–186.

Wrzesniewski, A., and Dutton, J. E. (2001), “Crafting aJob: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters ofTheir Work,” Academy of Management Review , Vol. 26,pp. 179–201.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965), “Social Facilitation,” Science, Vol. 149,pp. 269–274.

Zander, A. (1979), “The Study of Group Behavior over FourDecades,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 15,pp. 272–282.

chapter 15 job and team design - purdue university

Documents