Journal of Applied Psychology197S, Vol. 60, No. 2, 159-170

Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey

J. Richard HackmanYafe University

Greg R, OldhamDepartment of Business Administration,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

The properties and uses of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) are described.The JDS is intended (a) to diagnose existing jobs to determine if (and how)they might be redesigned to improve employee motivation and productivity,and (b) to evaluate the effects of job changes on employees. The instrumentis based on a specific theory of how job design affects work motivation, andprovides measures of (a) objective job dimensions, (b) individual psycho-logical states resulting from these dimensions, (c) affective reactions of em-ployees to the job and work setting, and (d) individual growth need strength(interpreted as the readiness of individuals to respond to "enriched" jobs).Reliability and validity data are summarized for 6S& employees on 62 differentjobs in 7 organizations who have responded to a revised version of theinstrument.

As both organizational productivity andemployee alienation from work become in-creasingly problematic in American society,more and more organizations are turning tothe redesign of work as a strategy for orga-nizational change directed toward solvingthese problems (cf. Davis & Taylor, 1972;Ford, 1969; Maher, 1971). Indeed, one par-ticular application of work redesign, job en-richment, seems about to become somethingof a fad among.managers and organizationalconsultants.

As yet, however, a solid body of knowl-edge about the consequences of job enrich-ment has not emerged from behavioral scienceresearch. Neither are there abundant dataavailable about the relative effectiveness ofvarious strategies for implementing work re-design projects (Hulin & Blood, 1968; Porter,Lawler, & Hackman, 197S, chap. 10).

This report was prepared in connection with re-search supported by the Office of Naval Research(Organizational Effectiveness Research Program,Contract N00014-67A-0097-0026, NR 170-744) andby the U.S. Department of Labor (Manpower Ad-ministration, Grant 21-09-74-14).

Tlie authors express great appreciation to mem-bers of the Roy W. Walters & Associates consultingfirm for assistance in gaining access to the organiza-tions where this research was conducted and toKenneth Brousseau, Daniel Feldman, and LindaFrank for assistance in data collection and analysis.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to J.Richard Hackman, S6 Hillhouse Avenue, Yale Uni-versity, New Haven, Connecticut 06520.

There are a number of reasons for this un-fortunate state of affairs. Some of them haveto do with the adequacy of existing theoriesabout how jobs affect people; others derivefrom methodological difficulties in carryingout job redesign experiments in on-goingorganizations. Yet perhaps one of the mostcompelling explanations for the paucity ofknowledge about work redesign is also oneof the most basic: namely, that our capabilityto measure (and thereby understand) whathappens when jobs are changed has been verylimited. '

The present article reports the developmentof a measurement tool, the Job DiagnosticSurvey (JDS), which may be helpful in fill-ing this void in research and action projectsinvolving the redesign of work. Specifically,(a) the conceptual basis of the instrument ispresented; (b) the instrument itself is brieflydescribed; (c) the empirical properties of theinstrument are presented and discussed; and(d) the uses and limitations of the instrumentare explored.

It should be kept in mind throughout thatthe instrument is designed to be of use bothin the diagnosis of jobs prior to their re-design, and in research and evaluation activi-ties aimed at assessing the effects of re-designed jobs on the people who do them.We believe that use of such an instrument todiagnose the motivational properties of jobsprior to redesign should aid change agents in

159

J. RICHARD HACKMAN AND GREG R. OLDHAM

wisely planning and implementing work re-design projects. Moreover, the availability ofa standardized instrument for use in evalu-ating the effects of such projects shouldfacilitate efforts by behavioral scientists tounderstand how and why job enrichmentworks when it does work—and what has gonewrong when it does not.

CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE INSTRUMENT

Any measuring device is based on someunderlying theory of "what's important" re-garding the phenomena under consideration(even if such a theory is implicit), and thisinstrument is no exception. The theory whichgave rise to the present instrument is basedon earlier work by Turner and Lawrence(1965) and by Hackman and Lawler (1971).It is sketched briefly below to provide acontext for understanding and interpretingthe measures generated by the instrument.For a more detailed description and discus-sion of the theory itself, see Hackman andOldham (Note 1)"

The basic theory is presented in Figure 1.It proposes that positive personal and work

Motivating Potential Score (MPS)

SkillVariety

outcomes (high internal motivation, highwork satisfaction, high quality performance,and low absenteeism and turnover) are ob-tained when three "critical psychologicalstates" are present for a given employee(experienced meaningfulness of the work, ex-perienced responsibility for the outcomes ofthe work, and knowledge of the results of thework activities). All three of the psychologi-cal states must be present for the positive out-comes to be realized.

The theory proposes that these criticalpsychological states are created by the pres-ence of five "core" job dimensions. Experi-enced meaningfulness of the work is enhancedprimarily by three of the core dimensions:skill variety, task identity, and task signifi-cance. Experienced responsibility for workoutcomes is increased when a job has highautonomy. Knowledge of results is increasedwhen a job is high on feedback. Following thetheory diagrammed in Figure 1, it is possibleto generate a summary score reflecting theoverall "motivating potential" of a job interms of the core job dimensions. The scoreis computed as follows:

TaskIdentity

3" "

As can be seen from the formula, an increasein any of the core dimensions will increasethe MPS; but (because of the multiplicativerelationship among its components) if any ofthe three major components of MPS is low,the resulting MPS also must be low. Therationale for the MPS measure is discussed indetail by Hackman and Oldham (Note 1).

A job high in motivating potential will notaffect all individuals in the same way. Inparticular, people who strongly value anddesire personal feelings of accomplishmentand growth should respond very positively toa job which is high on the core dimensions;individuals who do not value personal growthand accomplishment may find such a jobanxiety arousing and may be uncomfortably

Task 1Significance

X (Autonomy) X (Feedback).

"stretched" by it. Therefore, individualgrowth need strength is shown in Figure 1 asa moderator of the other theory-specifiedrelationships.

DESCRIPTION OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTICSURVEY

The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS), takenby employees who work on any given job,provides for that job measures of each of theconcepts specified in the theoretical frame-work. In addition, the instrument providesseveral supplementary measures of respon-dents' reactions to their work.

The JDS has its origins in previous meth-odologies developed by Turner and Lawrence(1965) and by Hackman and Lawler (1971).

DEVELOPMENT OP THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY 161

i CORE JOBj DIMENSIONS

Ski l l Vor ie ly ^1

1Task Iden t i f y S-

[Task S i g n i f i c a n c e \

Aulonom-u onom,

CRIT ICAL

j STATES

E x p e r i e n c e d> Mean ing fu lness

of the Work

Exper ie needR e s p o n s i b i l i t yfor Outcomesof the Work

Know ledge of the

A1- the Work A c t i v i t i e s

PERSONAL ANDW O R K OUTCOMES

^ High InternalWork Mo t i va t i on

High Q u a l i t yWork Performance

>

High Sat is fact ionW i t h the Work

A and Turnover

EMPLOYEE GROWTHN E E D STRENGTH

FIGURE 1. A theoretical model relating the core job dimensions, the criticalpsychological states, and on-the-job outcomes (as moderated by employeegrowth need strength).

Many of the scales and items used by theseresearchers are retained, in revised form, inthe JDS. The JDS itself has undergone threemajor revisions over a 2-year developmentalperiod, In its various forms, it has been takenby over 1,500 individuals working on morethan 100 different jobs in about IS differentorganizations.

Revisions of the instrument were based onboth psychometric and substantive considera-tions. On the one hand, items were added,deleted, and altered to maximize scale relia-bilities and the empirical discriminationamong scales. At the same time, however,efforts were made to keep the content of the

; items tapping a given construct as hetero-geneous as possible, to maximize the sub-stantive "richness" of the measures. Through-out the development of the JDS, analyseswere conducted to assess the validity of thetheory on which the instrument is based—.and the findings were used to revise andrefine the theory simultaneously with the im-provement of the instrument itself.

The specific measures obtained from theJDS are described below. Each class of varia-bles (except the "specific satisfactions") ismeasured in two different sections of the JDS

and by items written in two different for-mats, thereby decreasing the degree to whichsubstantive content and measurement tech-nique are confounded within the instrument.Seven-point response scales are used through-out (1 = low, 7 = high). The full instrument—and a detailed discussion of item contentand format—are provided in a separate re-port (Hackman & Oklham, Note 2).

Job Dimensions

The JDS provides measures of the five coredimensions shown in Figure 1, which are de-fined as follows:

Skill variety. The degree to which a jobrequires a variety of different activities incarrying out the work, which involve the useof a number of different skills and talents ofthe employee.

Task identity. The degree to which the jobrequires completion of a "whole" and identifi-able piece of work—that is, doing a job frombeginning to end with a visible outcome.

Task significance. The degree to which thejob has a substantial impact on the lives orwork of other people—whether in the imme-diate organization or in the external environ-ment.

162 J. RICHARD HACKMAN AND GREG R. OLDHAM

Autonomy, The degree to which the jobprovides substantial freedom, independence,and discretion to the employee in schedulingthe work and in determining the proceduresto be used in carrying it out.

Feedback from the job itself. The degree towhich carrying out the work activities re-quired by the job results in the employeeobtaining direct and clear information aboutthe effectiveness of his or her performance.

In addition, measures are obtained for twosupplementary dimensions which have beenfound to be helpful in understanding jobs andemployee reactions to them. These are:

Feedback from agents. The degree to whichthe employee receives clear information abouthis or her performance from supervisors orfrom co-workers. (This dimension is not,strictly speaking, a characteristic of the jobitself. It is included to provide informationto supplement that provided by the "feed-back from the job itself" dimension.)

Dealing with others. The degree to whichthe job requires the employee to work closelywith other people in carrying out the workactivities (including dealings with otherorganization members and with external or-ganizational "clients.")

As noted earlier, scores on the job dimen-sions are obtained from items in two sectionsof the instrument. In the first section, re-spondents indicate directly on the seven-pointresponse scale the amount of each job char-acteristic they perceive to be present in theirjob; in the second section, respondents indi-cate the accuracy of a number of statementsabout the characteristics of their job.

Critical Psychological States

The JDS provides measures of each of thethree psychological states shown in Figure 1as mediating between the core job dimensionsand the outcomes of the work. These are:

Experienced meaning fulness of the work.The degree to which the employee experiencesthe job as one which is generally meaningful,valuable, and worthwhile.

Experienced responsibility for work out-comes. The degree to which the employeefeels personally accountable and responsiblefor the results of the work he or she does.

Knowledge of results. The degree to whichthe employee knows and understands, on a

continuous basis, how effectively he or she isperforming the job.

Scores for the critical psychological statesare obtained from both self-descriptive andprojective type items. In the self-descriptivesection, respondents indicate their level ofagreement with a number of statements abouttheir work experiences. In the projective sec-tion, respondents are asked to "think of otherpeople in your organization who hold thesame job as you do" and report how accuratethey believe a number of statements are indescribing the feelings of those people.

Affective Reactions to the Job

The JDS provides measures of a numberof personal, affective reactions or feelings aperson obtains from performing the job. Theseare viewed, in the context of the theory inFigure 1, as the "personal outcomes" ob-tained from doing the work. (The instrumentdoes not measure actual work outcomes:productivity, employee perceptions of theirproductivity, turnover, or absenteeism.) Thepersonal outcomes are:

General satisfaction. An overall measure ofthe degree to which the employee is satisfiedand happy with the job.

Internal work motivation. The degree towhich the employee is self-motivated to per-form effectively on the job—that is, the em-ployee experiences positive internal feelingswhen working effectively on the job, and neg-ative internal feelings when doing poorly.

Specific satisfactions. A number of shortscales provide separate measures of satisfac-tion with: (a) job security, (b) pay and othercompensation, (c) peers and co-workers ("so-cial" satisfaction), (d) supervision, and (e)opportunity for personal growth and develop-ment on the job ("growth" satisfaction).

Items measuring general satisfaction andinternal work motivation are intermixed withitems tapping the three critical psychologicalstates, in both the self-descriptive and projec-tive sections of the instrument. For the fivespecific satisfactions, respondents report di-rectly how satisfied (or dissatisfied) they arewith various aspects of their jobs.

Individual Growth Need Strength

Finally, the JDS taps the strength of therespondent's desire to obtain "growth" satis-

DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY 163

factions from his or her work. This measureis viewed as a malleable individual differencecharacteristic which (as shown in Figure 1)is predicted to influence how positively anemployee will respond to a job with objec-tively high motivating potential.

Two separate measures of growth needstrength are obtained, one from items in a"would like" format, and one from items in a"job choice" format. In the former section ofthe instrument, respondents are asked to indi-cate directly how much they would like tohave a number of specified conditions presentin their jobs, some of which (e.g., "Chancesto exercise independent thought and actionin my job") focus on growth-relevant aspectsof the work. In the "job choice" section ofthe instrument, respondents indicate theirrelative preference for pairs of hypotheticaljobs (e.g., "A job where you are often re-quired to make important decisions" vs. "Ajob with many pleasant people to workwith"). In each item a job with character-istics relevant to growth need satisfaction ispaired with a job which has the potential forsatisfying one of a variety of other needs.

EMPIRICAL PROPERTIES OP THE JOBDIAGNOSTIC SURVEY 1

Methodology

Results reported here are based on dataobtained from 658 employees working on 62different jobs in 7 organizations. The jobswere highly heterogeneous, including blue-collar, white-collar, and professional work.Both industrial and service organizationswere included in the sample, but all werebusinesses. The organizations were located inthe east, southeast, and midwest, in bothurban and rural settings. Fifty-nine percentof the respondents were male; their medianage was 29, and their education ranged fromgrade school only to a graduate degree.

Data were collected on site at each organi-

1 A final, "fine-tuning" revision of the JDS wasmade after the data reported here were collected.Therefore, some of the results reported may beslightly discrepant from those which would be ob-tained using the instrument in its final form. Whenthere is any reason to believe that empirical resultsmight be substantially affected by a change whichhas been made, notation of that possibility is madein the data table.

zation. The JDS was administered to em-ployees in groups ranging in size from 3 to25. Participation was optional for all re-spondents. Assurances of confidentiality wereprovided, and few employees declined to par-ticipate or to provide their names on theinstrument.

Additional assessments of the character-istics of each job were obtained from super-visors of the focal job and from theresearchers—providing three independentsources of data about each job. The datafrom supervisors and researchers were ob-tained using the Job Rating Form. This in-strument, designed for use by people who arenot job incumbents, consists of job descrip-tive items nearly identical in form and con-tent to those on the JDS itself.2

Absence data were obtained from companyrecords. Ratings of the work effectiveness ofeach employee were obtained from super-visors on forms provided by the researchers,using 7-point rating scales for effort, workquantity, and work quality. Members of theresearch team spent 1-4 days at each organi-zation collecting data. Since it was not possi-ble to obtain complete data for all jobs in thesample, some of the results reported beloware based on a subset of the total sample.Full details of the data collection method-ology, including a summary of the demo-graphic characteristics of the respondents, areprovided by Hackman and Oldham (Note2 ) .

JDS Scale Reliabilities

Table 1 presents the internal consistencyreliabilities of each of the scales measured bythe Job Diagnostic Survey.3 '4 Also included inthe table for each scale is the median of the

- The properties of the Job Rating Form aredescribed and discussed in a separate report(Hackman & Oldham, Note 2) .

3 The term "scale" is used loosely throughout theremainder of this report to refer to the summaryscore obtained for each variable measured by theJDS. These scores were obtained by averaging theitems written to measure each of the JDS variables,and they are not formal "scales" in the technicalsense of the term.

4 Reliabilities were computed by obtaining themedian inter-item correlation for all items which arescored on each scale, and then adjusting the medianby Spearman-Brown procedures to obtain an esti-mate of the reliability of the summary scale score.

164 J. RICHAED HACK.MAN AND GREG R. OLDHAM

TABLE 1

RELIABILITIES OF THE JOE DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY(JDS) SCALES

JDS scale «"

Internalconsist-

encyreliability

Medianof/-

diagonalcorre-lation1'

Job dimensions

Skill varietyTask identityTask significanceAutonomyFeedback from the job

itselfFeedback from agentsDealing with others

3333

333

.71

.59

.66

.66

.71

.78

.59

.19

.12

.14

.19

.19

.15

.15

Psychological states

Experienced meaningful-ness of the work

Experienced responsibilityfor the work

Knowledge of results

4

64

.74

.72

.76

.26

.23

.17

Affective responses to the job

General satisfactionInternal work motivationSpecific satisfactions

Job security"Pay"SocialSupervisoryGrowth

56

22

3

.76

.76

.56

.79

.84

.25

.25

.23

.25

.28

Growth need strength

"Would like" format'1

Job choice format'16

12.88.71 —

a Number of items composing each scale.b The median off-diagonal correlation is the median correla-

lion of the items scored on a given scale with all of the itemsscored on different scales of the same type of variable. Thus,the median off-diagonal correlation for skill variety (.19) is themedian correlation of all items measuring skill variety with allthe items measuring the other six job dimensions.

c These scales were added to the JDS a f t e r the present datawere collected, and no reliability data arc yet available.

<l Off-diagonal correlations are not reported for these twoscales, since all items were designed to tap t l ie same construct.The scale scores obtained using the "would like" format corre-late .50 with the scale scores obtained using the job choiceformat .

correlations between (a) the items composinga given scale (e.g., skill variety) and (b) allof the other items which are scored on dif-ferent scales of the same general type (i.e.,

the other job dimension scales). These me-dian correlations (referred to in the table as"off-diagonal" correlations) provide one indi-cation of the discriminant validity of theitems.

Internal consistency reliabilities range from*a high of .88 (growth need strength, inthe "would like" format) to a low of .56(social satisfaction). The median off-diagonalcorrelations range from .12 (task identity) to.28 (growth satisfaction). In general, theresults suggest that both the internal con-sistency reliability of the scales and the dis-criminant validity of the items are satisfac-^tory.

Objectivity of the Job Dimensions

As indicated earlier, assessments of thefocal jobs on the job dimensions were madenot only by employees who worked on thosejobs, but by supervisors and by the research-ers as well. This was done to provide an in-direct test of the "objectivity" of employeeratings of the characteristics of their ownjobs.

The relationships among the judgmentsmade by employees, supervisors, and observ-

TABLE 2

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG EMPLOYEES', SUPERVISORS',AND OBSERVERS' JOB RATINGS

Job dimension

Skill varietyTask identityTask

significanceAutonomyFeedback from

the job itselfFeedback from

agentsDealing with

othersMotivating po-

tential scoreMdn

Correlations between ratings

Emploj'eesand

supervisors

.64

.31

.48

.58

.33

.07

.55

.56

.51

Employeesand

observers

.66

.32

.65

.76

.58

-.13

.61

.70

.63

Supervisorsand

observers

.89

.44

-.14.72

.47

.14

.37

.71

.46

Xote. Oata are included only for those jobs for which morethan one set of supervisory ratings were available. Ar rangedfrom 12 to 21 jobs.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY 165

ers are shown in Table 2. The ratings of eachgroup (i.e., employees, supervisors; observers)were averaged for each job, and then corre-lations were computed using jobs as observa-tions. The median of the correlations betweenemployees and supervisors is. .51; betweenemployees and observers is .63; and betweensupervisors and observers is .46.

Although in general the ratings of the threegroups converge moderately well, there are

some job dimensions (e.g., feedback fromagents) for. which the correlations betweentwo of the1 groups are quite low. Moreover,the general level of the correlations is lowerthan those reported for similar job dimen-sions by Hackman and Lawler (1971).

Means and Variances oj the JDS Scales

Means and standard deviations of the JDSscale scores across all 658 respondents are

TABLE 3MEANS, VARIANCES, AND ANALYSIS op VARIANCE TOR JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY (JDS) SCORES

JDS scalesTotal sample (N = 658)

X SD

Analysis of variance across jobs

X(n = 62)

Variancewithinjobs

Variancebetween

jobsF(49, 563)«

Job dimensions

Skill varietyTask identityTask significanceAutonomyFeedback from the job itselfFeedback from agentsDealing with othersMotivating potential score (MPS)

4.49 1.674.87 1.435.49 1.294.80 1.434.98 1.413.98 1.655.29 1.34

128.31 72.73

4.474.875.544.754,963.875.27

120,68

1.541.711.551.5S1.762.281.35

4,112.

17.705.903.227.924.4:!6.826.70

19,959.

11.49*3.45*2.08*5.11*2.51*2.99*4.96*4.85*

Psychological states

Experienced meaningfulness of the workExperienced responsibility for the workKnowledge of results

5.12 1.105.48 0.91S.18 1.09

5.065.445.19

1.050.701.06

3.192.372.57

3.04*2.24*2.42*

Affective responses to the job

General satisfactionInternal work motivationSpecific satisfactions

Job security8

Pay"SocialSupervisoryGrowth

4.62 1.185.39 0.96

— —— —5.42 0.925.28 1.274.82 1.32

4.575.34

——5.425.324.77

1.130.82

——

0.771.421.48

4.192.19

——

1.723.814.64

3.71*2.67*

——

2.23*2.68*3.14*

Growth need strength

"Would like" formatJob choice format'1

5.62 1.28— —

i5,51—

1.30—

5.11—

3.93*—

ft These scales were added to the JDS after the present data were collected, and normative data arc not yet available.b The response scale for the job choice format was revised from 7 to 5 points after these data were collected. Preliminary indica-

tions are that the mean of the five-point scale will be close to the midpoint (.3,0).c The analysis of variance was conducted on 50 jobs which had five or more respondents.* P < .01,

166 J. RICHARD HACKMAN AND GREG R. OLDHAM

presented in Table 3. The table also showsthe mean JDS scores across the 62 jobs in thesample (i.e., the scores of respondents whoworked on each job were averaged, and themean of these averages was computed acrossthe 62 jobs for each scale). The scale meansobtained across all respondents are very simi-lar to those obtained when averages werecomputed across jobs, suggesting that thedifferent numbers of respondents who heldthe various jobs did not substantially affectthe mean scale scores.

Also reported in Table 3 are the results ofone-way analyses of variance which werecomputed for each scale across SO jobs whichhad five or more respondents. As expected,between-job differences were statistically sig-nificant for all of the JDS scale scores. Thedata in the table show that the JDS scalesvary considerably both in the amount ofbetween-job variance present and in theamount of variance present among respon-dents within jobs. The F ratios can be takenas rough indicators of the sensitivity of thescales to between-job differences (at least forthe set of jobs in the present sample). Itshould be kept in mind, however, that thewithin-job variance (the denominator of theF ratio) is multiply determined — and inpart determined by real differences in actualjobs within organizational job categories.That is, some (unknown) amount of thewithin-job variance must be attributed toscale unreliability and to individual differencesamong respondents. At the same time, some(also unknown) amount of the same varianceis explained by the fact that jobs often areindividually designed to take account of par-ticular characteristics of the people who dothem, or because of the need for certainspecialized activities to be performed by somepeople within a given job category. There-fore, the ratio of the between- to the within-job variance should be interpreted with cau-tion.

Means for a subset of the JDS scales foran entirely different sample of respondentsare provided by VanMaanen and Katz (Note3). Scores are presented for a group of over3,000 public employees, broken into eightEqual Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) job categories. In general, the mean

scores for the EEOC sample are higher thanthe means for the sample of jobs in businessorganizations shown in Table 3.

Relationships Among the JDS Scales

Correlations among the JDS scales arepresented in Table 4. The job dimensions*^themselves are moderately positively inter- ftcorrelated, as has been found previously /(Hackman & Lawler, 1971). This is to be*expected, if it is assumed that "good" jobsoften are good in a number of ways, and"bad" jobs often are generally bad. There isno a priori reason to expect that the jobdimensions would or should be completelyindependent, and the moderate level of inter-correlation among them does not detract fromtheir usefulness as separate job dimensions —so long as the fact of their nonindependenceis recognized and accounted for in interpret-ing the scores of jobs on a given job dimen-sion.

\As expected, the job dimensions are posi-Nlively related to measures of work satisfac-ltion and motivation, and are generally inde-Jpendent of the two measures of growth needstrength. The measures of the critical psycho-\logical states are strongly related to those Jcore job dimensions predicted by the theory Ito affect them. They also are not substan-/tially related to the need strength measures/

The correlations in Table 4 were computedacross all 658 respondents; in addition, inter-correlations were computed across the 62 jobs(using the average of respondent scores foreach job as observations). These correla-tions (which are presented by Hackman &Oldham, Note 2) show a pattern quite simi-lar to that obtained in the across-respondentanalysis reported in Table 4. The level ofinterrelationship among the scales, however,is substantially higher in the across-job analy-sis, which may be attributed at least in partto the fact that group averages are certain tobe more reliable than the scores of individualrespondents.

Substantive Validity of the JDS

The substantive validity of the instrumentis addressed in detail in a separate report(Hackman & Oldham, Note 1). In general,that report shows that the variables measured

TABLE 4

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY (JDS) SCALE SCORES

JDS scale

1. Skill variety2. Task identity3. Task significance4. Autonomy5. Feedback from the job itself6. Feedback from agents7. Dealing with others8. Motivating potential score (MPS)9. Experienced meaningfulness of the work

10. Experienced responsibility for the work11. Knowledge of results12. General satisfaction13. Internal work motivation14. Social satisfaction15 Supervisory satisfaction16. Growth satisfaction17. Growth need strength (would like format)18 Growth need strength (job choice format)

1

.16

.21

.51

.32

.25

.46

.62

.51

.40

.124242.3115

.522731

2

—.20.38.26.16.02.51.26.34.212277

.1716

.31

.0806

3

—.22.26.22.24.41.43.34.2174322416

.3303

— 01

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 "13 14 15 16 17 18

—.34 —.23 .37 —.29 .24 .26 —.80 .72 .36 .34 —.46 .41 .31 .33 .57 —.41 .37 .23 .24 .53 .64 —.26 .54 .39 .06 .43 .33 .32 —43 37 33 24 49 66 48 34 —33 36 25 30 46 63 66 25 51 —.38 27 31 .36 .40 .41 .38 .32 .40 4.0 —32 31 41 13 35 39 32 37 46 31 37 —.58 .44 .39 .28 .63 .68 .54 .36 .67 .56 .52 .47 —10 11 13 .16 .19 10 .21 .07 .04 .19 .08 .07 02 —19 13 15 20 '5 15 21 05 13 17 10 10 08 50 —

oH

I§£B2rt

§

ooVIrtM

O

indta

Note. N = 658. Correlations >.10 are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

168 J. RICHARD HACKMAN AND GHKG R. OLDHAM

by the JDS relate to one another (and toexternal criterion variables) generally as pre-dicted by the theory on which the instrumentis based. In particular, the job dimensions(and the motivating potential score) relatepositively and often substantially to:

1. The other variables measured by theJDS which are predicted to be affected bythe job characteristics, including the threecritical psychological states, general satisfac-tion, growth satisfaction, and internal workmotivation (cf. Table 4).

2. Behavioral measures of absenteeism andsupervisory ratings of work performanceeffectiveness. (For example, the motivatingpotential score has a median correlation of— .25 with absenteeism, and of .24 with asummary measure of performance effective-ness. Both relationships are statistically reli-able at p < .OS.)

I ln addition, and also as predicted by thetheory, the relationships between the job di-mensions and the dependent measures arestronger for individuals high in growth needstrength than they are for individuals who donot strongly desire growth satisfactions. Allof these relationships are explored in moredetail in Hackman and Oldham (Note f).

DISCUSSION

Empirical Characteristics oj the JDS

Data discussed in the previous section showthat the Job Diagnostic Survey has satisfac-tory psychometric characteristics, and thatthe variables it taps relate generally as pre-dicted to appropriate external criteria. In-ternal consistency reliabilities are generallysatisfactory, and the items which compose thescales show adequate discriminant validity.Ratings of job characteristics by employees,supervisors, and outside observers show amoderate level of convergence for most of thejob dimensions. Variances of the scales aregenerally satisfactory, although some JDSscales show greater sensitivity to between-job differences than do others. Relationshipsamong the JDS scales are generally positive,indicating that either the concepts tapped bythe instrument or the methodologies used togauge these concepts (or both) are not com-pletely independent. In general, theory-speci-

fied relationships among JDS scales (andbetween these scales and behaviorally baseddependent measures) are in the predicted di-rection.

Diagnostic Use of the JDS

One of the major intended uses of the JobDiagnostic Survey is in diagnosing existingjobs as an input to planned job redesign. Theinstrument provides data on the followingissues, each of which is likely to be relevantto the diagnosis of a job prior to change —as well as to evaluative assessment of theeffects of job redesign after the change hasbeen implemented:

1. The overall level of motivation and sat-isfaction of employees on -the focal job. Theinternal work motivation scale and the sev-eral measures of job satisfaction provideindication of whether or not observed organi-zational or behavioral "problems" are in factrooted in the relationships of employees totheir work. In addition, examination of thelevel of satisfaction with aspects of organiza-tional l i fe not directly related to the workitself can signal special opportunities (or po-tential difficulties) in the process of imple-menting work redesign. (If , for example, payand supervisory satisfaction are very low,difficulties in initiating and carrying out asuccessful job redesign project might bevery significant.)

2. The overall motivating potential of ex-isting jobs, and how specific aspects of thejob contribute to the obtained motivatingpotential score. Comparison of the MPS of afocal job with that obtained for other jobs(and with normative data such as that pre-sented in Table 3) can indicate the degree towhich the job is realistically open to improve-ment through work redesign. Examination ofeach of the core dimensions shows whichspecific aspects of the job are most in needof improvement. These data can guide thosewho are planning the job redesign towardthose aspects of the work that most effectivelycan be changed and improved (cf. Hackman,Oldham, Janson, & Purely, in press).

Employees, supervisors, and outside ob-servers who participated in the present re-search showed only moderate agreementabout the characteristics of the objective jobs

DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOB DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY 169

under study (see Table 2 ) , For this reason,it is recommended that job descriptions ob-tained using the JDS be supplemented byindependent assessments made by individualswho are not incumbants of the focal job. (Asmentioned earlier, .the Job Rating Form,Hackman & Olclham, Note 2, is designedexplicitly for this purpose.)

It can be argued, of course, that when theintent is to predict or understand employeeattitudes or behavior at work, employee rat-ings of the job dimensions should be used,since it is the employee's own perception ofthe objective job that is causal of his reac-tions to it. Yet if work redesign activities areto be planned on the basis of the job dimen-sion scores obtained, it is important to knowthat those scores are reasonably congruentwith objective reality. It might be, for exam-ple, that for any of a number of reasons em-ployees are systematically misunderstandingor distorting the actual characteristics oftheir jobs. In such cases, an educational pro-gram might be much more appropriate as anintervention than redesign of the work. Byusing job descriptions from more than onesource and "triangulating" on the objectivecharacteristics of the job, the diagnosticiancan gain reasonable assurance that problemareas identified in the job actually are rootedin the job itself — rather than in faulty per-ceptions of the job.

3. The "readiness" of employees forchange. The measures of individual growthneed strength provided by the JDS can bean important factor in planning job changes,since people high in growth needs tend torespond more readily to "enriched" jobs thando people with little need for growth. Theprocess by which job changes are introducedand implemented should probably be a morecareful and deliberate one when employeesare relatively low in growth need strength.

Cautions in the Use of the JDS

Listed below are a number of issues which,if not recognized, could impair the validityand the usefulness of die Job Diagnostic Sur-vey in some applications.

1. Respondents to the JDS must be mod-erately literate. Use of the JDS is not rec-ommended for individuals with an eighth

grade education or less, or for individualswho do not read English well.

2. The instrument is readily fakable, andprobably should not be used for selection orplacement purposes unless an extraordinarilyhigh level of trust exists between the re-spondents and the individuals who will beusing the results. Indeed, even when the JDSis used to diagnose a work system prior tochange (or to assess the effects of changeswhich have been made) care should be takento ensure that employees believe that theirown interests will be best served if the datathey provide accurately reflect the objectivecharacteristics of the jobs and their personalreactions to them.

3. Related to the above, it probably is pref-rable for employees to take the JDS underconditions of anonymity. While the researchreported in this paper required the listing ofnames (and names were voluntarily suppliedby nearly all of the respondents), the instru-ment was administered by a university-affili-ated person and it was explicitly explained tothe respondents that the primary use of theiranswers was for research purposes. When theinstrument is administered by members oforganizational management for use by man-agement, anonymity surely will be importantfor at least some of the respondents.

4. The instrument is not recommended foruse in diagnosing the jobs of single individu-als. Anonymity, of course, is impossible if theindividual knows that it is his or her ownindividual job that is being diagnosed. Butthe issue extends beyond that. In developingthe JDS, the intent was to develop scalescomposed of items with rather heterogeneouscontent — to maximize the substantive "rich-ness" of each measure. This was accomplishedat some cost to internal consistency reliabil-ity. The reliabilities are more than satisfac-tory when the instrument is used to obtainaverage scores of a group of five or moreindividuals who work on a given job. In suchcircumstances, the estimated internal con-sistency of each JDS scale would exceed .85for the average of the group of individualswho hold the job. For data collected from asingle individual, the reliabilities would be asshown in Table 1, which may not be highenough to warrant job changes (or other ac-

170 J, RICHARD HACKMAN AND GREG R. OLDHAM

tion steps) on the basis of individual scalescores. (An exception to this state of affairsis the measure of individual growth needstrength. This scale is designed to be a mea-sure of an individual characteristic, and wasconstructed so as to be a highly reliable in-dicator of individual needs.)

5. Normative data are still being accumu-lated on the JDS scales. At this writing, sev-eral thousand respondents have taken one oranother of the preliminary versions of theJDS. Yet because the instrument itself hasbeen modified on the basis of those responses,a stable normative base has not yet beenestablished. The mean scale scores reportedin Table 3 can be used legitimately to makecomparisons with scores obtained in otheruses of the instrument. But the populationsfrom which these data were obtained werenot selected systematically enough for thedata to be used to generate formal norms(i.e., in computing standard scores and a scaleof percentil.es for the JDS measures). As ad-ditional data are accumulated from uses ofthe final version of the JDS, more completenormative information will be made available.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Motivationthrough the design of work: Test of a theory(Tech. Rep. No. 6). New Haven, Conn.: Yale

University, Department of Administrative Sci-ences, 1974.

2. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. The job diag-nostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosisof jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects(Tech. Rep. No. 4). New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity, Department of Administrative Sci-ences, 1974.

3. VanMaanen, J., & Katz, R. Work satisfaction inthe public sector (Tech. Rep.). Washington,D.C.: National Training and Development Ser-vice, 1974.

REFERENCES

Davis, L. E., & Taj'lor, J. C. Design of jobs. Mid-dlesex, England: Penguin, 1972.

Ford, R. N. Motivation through the work itself.New York: American Management Association,1969.

Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. Employeereactions to job characteristics. Journal of AppliedPsychology Monograph, 1971, 55, 259-286.

Hackman, J. R,, Oldham, G. R., Janson, R., &Purdy, K. A new strategy for job enrichment.California Management Review, in press.

Hulin, C. L., & Blood, M. R. Job enlargement, indi-vidual differences, and worker responses. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 1968, 69, 41-55.

Maher, J. R. New perspectives in job enrichment.New York: Van Nostrand, 1971.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Hackman, J.R. Behavior in organizations. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill, 1975.

Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. Industrial jobsand the worker. Boston: Harvard UniversityGraduate School of Business Administration, 1965,

(Received June 6, 1974)