Work Design PDF

LEKTION 4 WORK DESIGN STUDY GOALS On completion of this unit, you will be able to … – define work design. – explain the major work design perspectives and how they contribute to work design knowledge. – describe important models of work design and their basic assumptions. – understand how ind...

LEKTION 4 WORK DESIGN STUDY GOALS On completion of this unit, you will be able to … – define work design. – explain the major work design perspectives and how they contribute to work design knowledge. – describe important models of work design and their basic assumptions. – understand how individuals can use their scope to shape their work according to their needs.  4. WORK DESIGN Introduction The unit seeks to answer the question of what work design means by examining its his- tory. In addition, the unit presents the six major approaches in work design theory and central models of work design, such as the job demands-control-support and job demands-resources models. Furthermore, the unit addresses job crafting and strategies for it as well as job-crafting in non-work-related domains. 4.1 History of Work Design Work design Companies use work design to determine the framework conditions for their employees’ This term refers to „the work performance. Consequently, work design can be a major influence on outcomes content and organization of one’s work tasks, activ- such as work performance. Early studies in industrial and organizational psychology sha- ities, relationships, and ped the idea of work design. For example, consider the decomposition of work into indi- responsibilities“ (Parker, vidual elements in the concept of „scientific management“ by Taylor (1911) and the opti- 2014, p. 662). mizations of work tasks derived from time and motion studies (Gilbreth, 1911). This focus on work design culminated in the reduction of the assembly time of Henry Ford’s Model T in a plant from over 12 hours to about 90 minutes. However, this type of work design came at a high price. Stress was created. Alienation from the work task took place. While based on these early findings, recent theories of job design take more humanistic and holistic approaches. Well-known theories such as the job characteristics model (Hack- man & Oldham, 1976), the demand-control model (Karasek, 1979), and their successors are based on a fundamental assumption: Certain characteristics of jobs (e.g., the amount of control or variety) influence psychological states (e.g., psychological stress or perceived importance of work), which in turn affect employees’ attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) and behavior (e.g., performance). This assumption has essentially been confirmed by a large number of studies (Knight & Parker, 2021). 4.2 Major Work Design Perspectives Work design is an approach from the early days of industrial and organizational psychol- ogy. Therefore, there is also an overlap with the general history of this psychological disci- pline. According to Morgeson et al. (2013), six major approaches in work design theory can be identified: 1. Scientific management 2. Job enrichment approaches 3. Sociotechnical systems theory 4. Social information processing perspective 48 5. Job demands-control support and job demands-resources models 6. Interdisciplinary model of job design Scientific Management The approach of scientific management has its roots in the work by Taylor (1911) and Gil- breth (1911). The idea behind that approach is „that breaking work into discrete jobs ena- bles specialization and simplification, allowing workers to become highly skilled and effi- cient at performing particular tasks“ (Morgeson et al., 2013, p. 256). Accordingly, the focus is on how to increase the efficiency and productivity of employees. Work is designed by management to best meet the company’s objectives. Job Enrichment Approaches In contrast to the scientific management approach, job enrichment approaches aim to align work with higher-order needs of employees with consideration for humane work design. Particularly prominent among these approaches are the motivator-hygiene theory by Herzberg et al. (1959) and the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Herzberg et al. (1959) assume that people strive for self-actualization. There are two types of factors at work that can help fulfill this need. Motivators are the job factors that „reward the needs of the individual to reach [their]... aspirations,“ whereas hygiene factors are described as „factors in the job context [that] meet the needs of the individual for avoiding unpleasant situations“ (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 114). The job characteristics model attempts to relate concrete workplace characteristics to psychological states that, in turn, lead to outcomes such as improved job performance. Sociotechnical Systems Theory The work done at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in Great Britain and the find- ings concerning work in autonomous work groups (Trist & Bamforth, 1951) led to socio- technical systems theory. Accordingly, social and technical systems should always be developed together or aligned for optimal results. Research based on this approach has resulted in several design recommendations (Cummings, 1978): Tasks must be designed such that they are performed autonomously while forming a large whole (i.e., these tasks also have a minimum level of interdependence). Employees must have sufficient autonomy to perform their tasks. Employees must also have control over the immediate task environment in order to be able to produce an outcome through their behavior. Social Information Processing Perspective Social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) is based on the assumption that meaning is socially constructed. In effect, individuals adapt their attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to their social context. Even if objective working conditions are important for action, social information processing theory proposes that social information is at least as important as these conditions. The social environment affects individuals in two ways: it helps (1) „construct meaning about uncertain organizational features and events“ and 49  (2) by „making certain information more salient“ and, thus, directing attention (Morge- son et al., 2013, p. 529). Ultimately, social cues have an impact on the perception of and reaction to work. Job Demands-Control-Support and Job Demands-Resources models The job demands-control-support model (Karasek, 1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al., 2001) are mainly used in stress research. However, they have also made important contributions in the field of work design. The job demands-control-support model explains how stress can arise in the interaction between work demands and control, whereas a buffer (and types of support in the later version of the model) can act as a moderator (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Thus, the theory focuses on these characteristics for job design. The job demands- resources model expands this view even further and asserts that many other job resources in addition to autonomy and support can both buffer the development of stress and have positive effects themselves. Interdisciplinary Model of Job Design As shown, there are a variety of approaches to the topic of work design. Campion (1988, 1989; Campion & Thayer, 1985) attempted to systematize this multitude of different approaches. According to the interdisciplinary model of job design, four relatively inde- pendent strands of theory have developed, each focusing on slightly different outcomes (Morgeson et al., 2013): 1. The mechanistic model, which assumes that increased simplification, specialization, and repetition of work leads to efficiency 2. The motivational model, which assumes that enrichment of work (e.g., by increasing the variety of tasks) leads to motivation and job satisfaction 3. The perceptual model, which assumes that reduced demands for information pro- cessing reduce the probability of errors, accidents, and mental overload 4. The biological model, which assumes that reduced physical demands and environ- mental stressors as well as an increase of attention to postural factors lead to a reduc- tion of physical discomfort, strain, and fatigue 4.3 Models of Work Design Various work design models are being developed, some of which have already been allu- ded to. This section presents the central models of work design. Job Characteristics Model The job characteristics model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) is one of the most important work design models. This model postulates that five core job char- acteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job) lead to three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness of the work, 50 experienced responsibility for outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of the work activities). In turn, these states are linked to several desired outcome variables (high internal work motivation, high quality of work performance, high satisfaction with the work, and low absenteeism and turnover). In the original model, the authors assumed that the individual characteristic growth need strength (GNS) was a moderator of the Growth need strength relationship between the job characteristics and outcomes. Hence, it is assumed that the This refers to the individ- ual’s need for personal higher the GNS, the stronger the relationship between job characteristics and outcomes growth and development should be. through their job. Furthermore, according to the model, these five job characteristics can be combined into one index: the motivational potential score (MPS). The MPS can be computed as follows: Skill variety+Task identity + Task significance MPS = 3 × Autonomy × Job feedback However, the assumption that jobs with a high MPS tend to promote motivation better than jobs with a lower MPS clearly cannot be confirmed in such an empirical way. For instance, outcomes such as motivation are better predicted by a simple additive combina- tion of the five job characteristics (Fried & Ferris, 1987). Overall, the job characteristics model is considered empirically confirmed. For example, a meta-analysis by Loher et al. (1985) confirmed the assumption that job characteristics are related to job satisfaction and that this relationship is stronger for employees with higher GNSs. Another meta-analysis generally supported the assumptions of the model (Fried & Ferris, 1987) : There seem to be differentiable job characteristics. The job characteristics are related to psychological (i.e., the psychological states) and behavioral outcomes (i.e., the desired outcomes). The psychological variables seem to mediate the relationship between job characteris- tics and outcomes. Job Demand-Control Model and Job Demand-Control-Support Model In its original form, the job demand-control model (Karasek, 1979) distinguishes between job demands on the one hand and the specific job resource „job control“ or „job decision latitude“ on the other. This resource corresponds to the latitude that the working person has with regard to the concrete execution of their activity (i.e., how freely they can decide for themselves what to do when and how). To illustrate the connection between job demands and job control, the continuous varia- bles are often dichotomized (i.e., the variables are divided into „low“ and „high“ varia- bles). Combining these subdivisions for job demands and job control results in fourdiffer- ent types of jobs: 51  1. If both job demands and job control are low, the job is classified as „passive.“ Thus, an employee must fulfill low demands but has no latitude in deciding how to deal with these demands. 2. However, when the job demands remain low and the job control is high, the job is considered to be a „low strain“ job. 3. The opposite is true when high demands meet low job control. This type of job repre- sents a „high strain“ job (i.e., a potentially very problematic and stressful job). 4. High job control is required to adequately deal with high demands. This case is labeled as an „active“ job. Figure 3: Job Demand-Control Model With Example Jobs Source: Timo Kortsch (2023), based on Karasek (1979, p. 288). The model formulates three central hypotheses: 1. Strain hypothesis: Strain increases as job demands increase (see the diagonal line labeled „S“ in the figure above). 2. Learning hypothesis: Learning and further development occur more strongly in active jobs than in passive jobs (see the diagonal line labeled „L“ in the figure above). 3. Buffer hypothesis: Job control buffers the negative effects of high stress. Johnson and Hall (1988) extended the job demand-control model by adding a second resource to the model in addition to job control: social support (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Consequently, it is called the job demand-control-support model. The previous four-field square thus becomes an eight-field cube. Jobs with high social support are referred to as „collective,“ whereas jobs with low social support accordingly are labeled „isolated.“ 52 Figure 4: Job Demand-Control-Support Model With Strain Hypothesis Source: Timo Kortsch (2023), based on Johnson & Hall (1988). According to the strain hypothesis in the job-demand-control-support model, the lowest strain is present in „low strain collective“ jobs. In contrast, the highest strain is associated with „high strain isolated“ jobs. Consequently, the strain hypothesis also applies here: the higher the job demands, the higher the strain. Likewise, the lower the job control, the higher the strain. However, this hypothesis is now extended to include social support and proposes that the lower the social support, the higher the strain. SMART Work Design The SMART work design model (Centre for Transformative Work Design, 2020; Parker & Jorritsma, 2021) integrates previous research on work design. SMART is an acronym that stands for the work design factors stimulating, mastery, agency, relational, and tolerable demands. Each factor consists of different subfacets. According to the approach, designing SMART work helps employees get healthy (mitigate illness), stay healthy (prevent harm), and get the most out of themselves (promote thriving). Even though the model was devel- oped for practical use, it reflects the current state of work design research. 53  Table 4: SMART Factors and Subfacets Factor Subfacets Stimulating Diversity of requirements, diversity of tasks, and problem solving Mastery Role clarity, feedback, and holistic approach Agency Autonomy with regard to planning, decisions, and methods Relational Support from managers and colleagues, importance of tasks, and appreci- ation Tolerable demands Moderate time pressure and workload, manageable emotional demands, and low role conflicts Source: Timo Kortsch (2023), based on Centre for Transformative Work Design (2020). 4.4 Job Crafting In the meantime, research has shown that the design of an environment conducive to learning does not only emanate from the company (i.e., „top down“ design). Instead, employees themselves can also actively shape their work environments according to their Job crafting own interests. In this context, job crafting (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), which focu- According to this form of ses on the use of creative leeway at work, is an interesting approach. In this respect, crafting, a person designs their work in such a way employees are seen as actively shaping their work. that it matches their own ideas and abilities as Job crafting includes a variety of activities to expand a person’s own scope for shaping much as possible. their work. Perhaps someone wants more exchanges with their colleagues or a more var- ied work activity. When job crafting, employees do not wait until something is changed by the company. Rather, they initiate the changes themselves. For example, there may be occasional opportunities to take on new challenges, redesign one’s own tasks into small learning projects, or more frequently seek feedback from others. In the original concept (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001), a distinction is made between task crafting (i.e., expanding one’s own tasks), relational crafting (i.e., shaping relationships with the social work envi- ronment), and cognitive crafting (i.e., changing one’s thought framework about the mean- ing of one’s own work). Strategies of Job Crafting The resource-based approach (Tims et al., 2012) offers another way to distinguish between four job crafting strategies: 1. Increase structural resources: This includes a person both seeking out learning opportunities for themselves to improve their skills and consciously creating space by, for example, organizing work differently. 2. Increase social resources: One way for a person to increase their social resources is to seek feedback on their own or look to members of their own team as a source of learning and specifically pick things up from them. 54 3. Increase challenging requirements: For example, a person can increase their chal- lenging requirements by taking responsibility for an interesting project that is not nec- essarily in their own area of responsibility. They can also look for new tasks on their own initiative instead of waiting for other (perhaps less attractive) tasks to be assigned to them. 4. Decrease obstructive demands: According to this strategy, one reduces cognitively, emotionally, or socially stressful activities when possible. An example would be set- ting clear boundaries with colleagues. The first three strategies, which are characterized by an approach motivation, have been meta-analytically associated with „work engagement“ (i.e., being absorbed in one’s work; Lichtenthaler & Fischbach, 2019). In contrast, the fourth strategy, which is characterized by an avoidance motivation, reduces work engagement, and increases the risk of burnout. SUMMARY Work design refers to the content and organization of a person’s work tasks, activities, relationships, and responsibilities. The unit gave a brief overview of the history of work design research. After that, it discussed major approaches in work design theory and central models of work design. In particular, it outlined the job demands-control-support model. The unit also addressed the respective assumptions of each model, from which a practitioner can determine how work should be designed. Lastly, the unit defined job crafting and explored four strat- egies of job crafting: increase structural resources, increase social resources, increase challenging requirements, and decrease obstructive demands. 55