2352560

Motivation Theory and Job Design
Author(s): William E. Gallagher, Jr. and Hillel J. Einhorn

Source: The Journal of Business, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Jul., 1976), pp. 358-373
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352560
Accessed: 24-06-2017 10:17 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352560?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Business
This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 10:17:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
William E. Gallagher, Jr., and
Hillel J. Einhorn*
Motivation Theory and Job Designt
One element in business life that persists as a management concern is the

attention to productivity. Whether supervising an expansion of his firm's
activities, or cutting back on policies in response to sagging demand, a
manager continually strives to draw a better return on his capital invest-
ment. When this effort is directed toward the human portion of the firm's
capital, the manager focuses upon a recurrent problem in business activity
-employee motivation.
At the blue-collar level, productivity difficulties have been attributed
to the well-established practice of maximizing specialization of tasks, that
is, attaining efficiency through the development of highly fractionalized,
repetitious, and programmed jobs. Blue-collar blues has been the result of
this form of job design-a dissatisfaction with work performed, and a just-
get-by cast to the consequent effort. Motivational problems in managerial
positions have also drawn considerable attention. Intense competition for
quality in manager talent may have effected a degree of uniformity in
administrative ability across business firms. The simple model,
performance = ability X motivation,
indicates that a uniformity of ability causes work motivation to become a

major factor in distinguishing performance effectiveness.
The recent recognition of these motivational problems has led manage-
ment away from a specialization focus in the design of jobs, toward an
employment philosophy based on eliciting intrinsic reward from work
effort. Such incentives as feelings of self-worth, accomplishment, and of
pleasure from using and developing one's skills are termed "intrinsic re-
wards" since they stem directly from the performance of work and are
mediated or administered by the worker himself. A contrasting incentive
locus is external reward, for example, pay, job security, fringe benefits, etc.,
which are a function of the job situation and are given by others. This
change in management thrust followed the analysis of McGregor,' sum-
marized in his theory X/theory Y formulation. Attention to human needs
* Marketing representative, IBM, Chicago; associate professor, behavioral science,

University of Chicago, respectively.
t This research was supported by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. We would
like to thank Kenneth Friend and L. Richard Hoffman for their comments on this
manuscript.
1. Douglas McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1960).
358
359 Motivation Theory and Job Design
and the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy in worker motivation has since been

sustained by the proposals of such psychologists as Argyris, Herzberg,
Likert, Hackman, and Lawler.2 The new work-motivation viewpoint is
manifested in programs of job extension, job enrichment, and job enlarge-
ment. One current example of alterations in employment content made by
two automakers illustrates this departure from specialized, programmed
jobs toward enlarging work:
In some areas Volvo and Saab-Scania are using a team-production method,

in which auto and truck components are assembled by semi-autonomous groups of
four to seven workers each. At times they can decide in what order to tackle their
tasks and even who their foreman will be. In another method, the men move along
the line with the cars performing each successive assembly operation. The auto-
makers are also rotating some assembly-line workers to different jobs. An employee
may attach seat headrests one day, bore holes in the seat framework the next,
connect back supports and lift seat cushions onto conveyor belts on subsequent
days. At Volvo some female assembly workers even spend one day every two weeks
doing office jobs.3
In this paper we first intend to describe the major job-design ap-

proaches that have developed and then explore the motivational assump-
tions upon which these new management policies are based. We then present
a review of some experiments in job design and attempt to evaluate their
findings. Finally, we discuss the implications of both theory and practice
for deciding whether to embark on a job-design program.
JOB DESIGNS
Job design has been defined as the "specification of the contents, methods,
and relationship of jobs in order to satisfy technological and organizational
requirements as well as the social and personal requirements of the job
holder."4 Design by job specialization (the general thrust of U.S. work-
management theory through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries)
concentiated exclusively on the "technological and organizational require-
ments" of employment. In their neglect of workers' social and ego-related
needs (needs that have been strongly related to work performance beginning
with the Hawthorne studies of Elton Mayo), proponents of specialization
have been accused of fostering negative effect toward work.
Two broad categories of job design have evolved that are aimed at
engaging the motivational forces of workers' egoistic needs through the
2. Chris Argyris, Integrating the Individual and the Organization (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1964); Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man (Cleveland: World
Publishing Co., 1966), Rensis Likert, The Human Organization: Its Management and Value
(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967); R. Hackman and E. Lawler, "Conditions
under Which Jobs Facilitate Internal Motivation," in Design of Jobs, ed. L. E. Davis and
J. C. Taylor (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1972); Edward Lawler, "Job Design and Em-
ployee Motivation," in Management and Motivation, ed. V. Vroom and E. Deci (Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1973).
3. "Disassembling the Line," Time (January 17, 1972), p. 58.
4. Harold F. M. Rush, Job Design for Motivation (New York: The Conference
Board, 1971), p. 5.
360 The Journal of Business
establishment of job characteristics that generate intrinsic rewards. The

first type of program involves job enlargement, job extension, and job rota-
tion. A job-enlargement design concentrates upon increasing employee
motivation by expanding a job from a central task to cover other related
tasks5 (another term for such a system is "horizontal loading").6 Variety in
tasks is emphasized here, as the mere addition of the same type of duties to
a central task, termed "job extension," is held to be a program aggravating
boredom and fatigue in employment.7
Closely related to the enlargement approach is job rotation. This
design involves the rotation of an employee through a series of departments
or positions centered about a core job, to give him a broad perspective of
his position in the organization. The intended effect of such a system is
similar to that of job enlargement: to augment worker motivation by
eliciting intrinsic incentives derived from a job made more varied and (pre-
sumably) more interesting.8
The second type of job design aims at fostering intrinsic motivation
through granting increased responsibility in the work situation. A job-
enrichment (also termed "vertical" job loading) plan is intended to have
the employee assume some of the prior planning and evaluation/measure-
ment aspects of his job. Usually, this approach also implies that the level of
difficulty or complexity of the job is raised. Furthermore, as the variety of
tasks involved is often increased under this design, job-enlargement bene-
fits are thus included. The primary incentive gain, however, is considered
to be that the worker is provided with an opportunity to help plan his work
objectives and to control and evaluate his performance.9
MOTIVATION-THEORY BACKGROUND
FOR JOB DESIGN
Job design has been a topic of concern for many years. The early efforts of
scientific management (making use of time and motion studies) to redesign
jobs are the most obvious example. However, current efforts at job design
have moved from the concern for time and motion to a consideration of the
methods that make more efficient use of worker motivation. It must be
pointed out that attempts to redesign jobs to enlist greater motivation did
not proceed in an orderly fashion from theory to practice. Practitioners have
tried various methods for increasing productivity through motivation with-
out full awareness of the motivational principles underlying their methods.
Nevertheless, implicit assumptions about motivation were (and are) being
made. These assumptions need to be explicitly considered so that they can
be examined critically and their links to practical applications examined.
5. Ibid., p. 12
6. Fredrick Herzberg, "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?" in
Davis and Taylor, p. 118.
7. P. Schoderbek and W. Rief, Job Enlargement (Ann Arbor: University of Michi-
gan Press, 1969), p. 8.
8. Rush, p. 13.
9. Ibid.
In order to explore the theoretical rationale for the current efforts of

job design, we deal with need theory, that is, how motivation is tied to
attempts to satisfy basic needs (defined as tension states causing disequi-
librium within the organism). We focus on the work of Abraham Maslow,"0
since he is probably the most influential theorist in this area and his ideas
can be seen in the work of a number of job-design theorists. Thus, his work
will provide a useful base for examining the implicit assumptions underlying
the new job design programs.
Maslow postulated a hierarchy of needs within people. First or lowest
in this motivational hierarchy are physiological needs (of hunger, sleep,
sex). These are prepotent over all other needs in that, if left unsatisfied,
these tension states will dominate and direct behavior (toward reducing
the internal discomfort). As physiological needs encounter sufficient satis-
faction, security or safety needs are held to become activated-concerns
for health and well-being that extend beyond the mere fulfillment of physical
cravings (to such things as the establishment of routine and the formation
of habits).
Relative satisfaction of security needs causes human motivational
attention to move upward in the hierarchy, giving belongingness needs
potency in determining behavior. At this level of disequilibrium, affection
and meaningful interpersonal relationships are sought. Esteem needs next
appear, as interpersonal bonds become sufficient. Two types of esteem make
up this category: (1) the striving for regard from others, in the form of
prestige, or recognition and status, and (2) the desire for mastery and com-
petence, for independence.
As the gratification of these esteem needs generates feelings of self-
worth and personal capability, the actor is drawn to the pinnacle of the
Maslow hierarchy, a tension state perceived as a different order of existence
from those below. Physiological, security, belonging, and (at least the
recognition-oriented) esteem needs involve a deficit mechanism, that is,
gratification serves to fill the void that constitutes the need. Progression up
the hierarchy ultimately moves a person to the motivational plateau of
self-actualization. Maslow conceived of this category as encompassing those
impulses that direct a mature, well-ordered personality. This personality
type is motivated by the need to create, to employ fully talents and energies
in goal striving and problem solution, and to maintain autonomy and spon-
taneity in dealing with the environment. These self-actualization compo-
nents are termed "growth" rather than deficit needs. While growth needs
are recognized to be pleasant or desirable internal tensions, it is important
to note that they are self-reinforcing. In other words, need gratification
brings about a continued and augmented desire for further effort.
10. Abraham Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review 50

(1943): 370-96. See also Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1954);
Toward a Psychology of Being (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand & Co., 1962); "Notes on
Being-Psychology," Journal of Humanistic Psychology 2 (1962): 47-71; Eupsychian Man-
agement (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Dorsey Press, 1965).
With the inclusion of this fifth need level, Maslow sets out a distinc-
tion crucial for new employment-motivation theories. The lower-order
deficit needs cease to be motivators upon the attainment of a sufficient level
of satisfaction (not explicitly defined in the theory); motive strength is
directly related to insufficiently fulfilled needs. But the attainment of the
self-actualization level introduces a new form of incentive, since actualiza-
tion needs grow, rather than encounter gratification by tension reduction.
Maslow's postulation of a hierarchical need structure is appealing in
its simplicity and apparent completeness. But his theory has been subject
to criticism due to unclear conceptual issues and lack of empirical evidence.
Questions concerning the rigidity of his hierarchy and the prepotence
of lower-level needs are raised when instances are cited of persons display-
ing the ability to attend to higher-level needs when lower deficits are clearly
not being met (as in the case of obsessive creativity, a growth-related activ-
ity, being pursued at the expense of sleep, eating, and other daily mainte-
nance needs). Maslow's failure to detail the basic processes through which
growth and deficiency needs differ serves as another foundation for skepti-
cism. He attributes to deficit needs a relief mechanism whereby satiation is
followed by a relaxation which suspends further motivating pressure; to
growth needs he assigns the quality of developing a need drive, with the
motivated behavior itself constituting the goal and an ecstasy or serenity
state accompanying the full function of one's powers. But his interesting
dichotomy does not explain the underlying mechanism differentiating the
two types of needs.
To these examples of conceptual criticism only limited empirical sup-
port for the Maslow hierarchy may be added. The prepotence of the lower
two need levels is fairly well supported by human and animal experimenta-
tion." However, conclusive evidence on prepotence is lacking for the higher
need levels. A direct test of the operation of the Maslow theory conducted
by Hall and Nougaim found a low correlation between lower-level need
satisfaction and higher-level need strength,'2 thus failing to support the posi-
tion that greater lower-level gratification should be associated with increased
need strength at the higher stage. The Maslow theory does gain some sup-
port in work by Alderfer,'3 who condensed the five hierarchy levels into three
need stages-existence, relatedness, and growth. He established a link
between the satisfaction of existence needs and the strength of relatedness
needs, but his data did not support a hypothesized relationship between the
potency of growth needs and gratification at the lower levels. Alderfer did,
however, find results supportive of the position that growth needs tend to
increase in strength upon fulfillment, while the lower (deficit) needs lose
potency by gratification.
11. C. N. Cofer and M. H. Appley, Motivation: Theory and Research (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1967), pp. 681-90.
12. D. Hall and K. Nougaim, "An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an
Organizational Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Performances 3 (1968): 12-35.
13. Clayton Alderfer, "An Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 4 (1969): 142-75.
Despite the conceptual difficulties discussed above, M

can serve as an important conceptual link to job-design theories. Our analysis
will investigate how the concepts of basic-need theory and intrinsic incentives
are linked and then the manner in which these abstractions are translated
into job-content characteristics to be manipulated by job designers.
ROLE OF REWARD
In relating his motive hierarchy to the work situation, Maslow identifies

the esteem-need level as an important transition area for human incentive.
This need level constitutes a clear dividing point within the hierarchy with
respect to the locus of the source of need fulfillment: for the lower half of
the esteem stage and for those needs below, the accomplishment of need
fulfillment is outside the person, through the manipulation of objects in the
environment or through interpersonal contact. In the gratification of self-
esteem and self-actualization needs, the emphasis is on an internal reaction
to events. Such sensations as the pleasure from successful achievement, the
exercise of a personal skill, the acceptance of responsibility, are focused upon
by Maslow as factors fulfilling the self-esteem and actualization needs. It is
important to note that these activities are exactly those that were termed
"intrinsic rewards" in the job situation. Through his hierarchical formula-
tion, then, Maslow has directly linked the generation of intrinsic rewards
with the higher-order growth-type needs.
Maslow considered continued gratification at these high-growth-need
levels to constitute functioning at full humanness; psychological illness or
pathology was seen to be suffered when successful need fulfillment at this
growth plateau, or at any of the deficit levels, was blocked. "Health versus
illness" is an implicit factor in Herzberg's "Motivation-Hygiene Theory" of
work incentives.14 In his analysis of reward contingencies, Herzberg dis-
tinguishes two sets of factors: those whose presence alleviates dissatisfaction
in employees and those which generate satisfaction on a job. Among the
elements included in the dissatisfaction group, termed "hygiene" factors, are
salary and benefits, status, job security, and interpersonal relationships with
coworkers-for the most part, job attributes that would be classified as
extrinsic job rewards. Motivators, those factors conducive to satisfaction in
Herzberg's scheme, are such experiences as a feeling of achievement, pride
in work accomplished, advancement, and acceptance of responsibility-
examples of intrinsic reward. Thus, while the two theorists come to the posi-
tion through different paths (though some parallels might be drawn between
the hygiene/motivator formulation and the deficit/growth need schema),
both Maslow and Herzberg place the process of intrinsic reward at a higher,
more healthy level in the motivation of human behavior.
The relative potency of intrinsic and extrinsic reward is a motivational
concern further discussed in the investigations of Deci and in the perfor-
14. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959).
mance theory of Porter and Lawler."5 Deci's efforts concern the matter of how
rewards from different sources interact-whether one causes a complemen-
tary or derogatory influence on the other in motivating behavior. His labora-
tory work discerns two such interactions: extrinsic rewards of money and
threats of punishment (a negative reinforcement) decrease intrinsic motiva-
tion, while verbal praise and similar positive external reinforcement increase
intrinsic reward. Deci attempts to account for these findings by distinguish-
ing between controlling and feedback rewards. Money and threats are con-
trolling in the sense that they become the reason for behavior, their presence
shifts the locus of causality from within the agent to the source of the
external reward. A feedback factor such as verbal praise is considered to
augment an internal-motivation orientation by reinforcing the competence
and self-determination reactions that arise upon task completion. In his
analysis, Deci proposes that intrinsic motivators are the more advantageous
in that (1) they are operative without any external maintenance and (2),
along with those extrinsic reward contingencies that feed back into them,
they help to continue a sense of self-esteem and personal worth. He further
cites Maslow's argument that internal-reward processes result in less anxiety,
thus being more conducive to mental health than external-reward systems.
Porter and Lawler attend to the relative strength of intrinsic/extrinsic
reward in their attempt to delineate the factors determining performance in
a job. Their model, a combination of the subjective expected utility orienta-
tion (much drawn from Vroom)'6 with need-gratification theory, combines a
worker's utility of job rewards with a perceived reward/effort conditional
probability to determine the amount of effort devoted to a task. (This
reward/effort conditional probability is recognized to consist of two dis-
tinguishable components: a performance/effort conditional probability, fol-
lowed by a reward/performance conditional probability.) This effort is then
combined with the worker's individual task abilities and role perceptions to
establish a level of job performance. The model further stipulates that the
reception of rewards after task completion (1) feeds back to modify the per-
ceived reward/effort conditional probability, and (2) determines, when com-
pared with the worker's judgment of an equitable reward for his efforts, the
degree of satisfaction derived from his performance. (This satisfaction, or
discontent, then feeds back to influence the utility of reward.) In order to
positively affect employee motivation, Porter and Lawler feel that modifica-
tions of job characteristics must improve either an employee's evaluation of
rewards and/or his perceived probability that rewards are determined by
high levels of effort.
Porter and Lawler focus upon the latter relationship, asserting that
particular changes in job content can have a positive effect on job motiva-
tion by influencing the perceived probability that good performance will
15. Edward Deci, "Work-Who Does Not Like It and Why," Psychology Today 2
(August 1972): 57; L. Porter and E. Lawler, Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Home-
wood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968).
16. Victor Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964).
result in reward. Differential effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reward con-

tingencies are important in establishing this influence, as suggested in studies
conducted by Porter and Lawler. Their tests differentiated between subjects
motivated by higher-order needs (gratified primarily through an intrinsic
reward mechanism) and those concerned with lower-order needs (external
gratification). The former group was found to produce a higher correlation
between job satisfaction and performance measures than did the lower-level
need subjects. From such investigation the authors hypothesized a stronger
performance/intrinsic reward link for their model: because intrinsic rewards
are self-administered, there is a more immediate connection between per-
formance and reward than in reward situations involving external agents.
Thus, a higher reward/performance conditional probability may be gener-
ated by an employee oriented toward intrinsic rewards than by the same
individual anticipating extrinsic reward. Enhancing the reward/performance
component increases the entire reward/effort conditional probability deter-
minant of work effort. Consequently, job factors which tap higher-order
needs and their accompanying intrinsic rewards would serve to augment
work motivation by increasing an employee's expectation of reward. Porter
and Lawler assert, ". ..a direct connection exists between performance and
these rewards if the design of the job provides sufficient variety and challenge
so that when a person feels he has performed well he can reward himself. If
the design of the job does not involve these characteristics, there would be
no direct connection between good performance and intrinsic rewards."'7
Further analysis by Hackman and Lawler has described four measure-
able task dimensions as being important in tapping higher-order needs and
the generation of intrinsic rewards."8 These are autonomy, task identity,
variety, and feedback.
The first dimension implies that a job must allow an employee to feel
personally responsible for his work; perceived accomplishments should be
clearly linked to the degree of individual effort devoted to a task. A strong
assurance of self-control over setting work goals and the paths to attain them
is cited as a major component of this responsibility characteristic. (Investi-
gation by Argyris'9 has demonstrated that the existence of a self-control per-
ception in task fulfillment is a necessary condition for the experience of psy-
chological success, and a gain in self-esteem, as a result of good performance.)
In jobs high on measured autonomy, employees tend to maintain that they
own the outcomes of their efforts, while in low autonomy settings workers
tend to attach the responsibility for success/failure to coworkers or super-
visors.
The second dimension implies that the job must provide work out-
comes perceived as meaningful to the individual employee. Self-esteem needs
are involved here, as the degree of significance given to the job itself is dis-
tinct from the perception that effort was successful in attaining task com-
17. Porter and Lawler, p. 163.
18. Hackman and Lawler.
19. Cited in ibid., p. 148.
pletion. Recognizing that individual differences in conceptions of meaning-

fulness render impossible a general specification of job characteristics, Hack-
man and Lawler detail two ways in which work may be made meaningful for
employees sensitive to higher-order need satisfaction. One method consists of
making the individual's task a sufficiently whole piece of work so that the
person feels that something of consequence is being produced or accom-
plished. When high on this task identity dimension, a job is characterized
by the opportunity for an employee to gain a clear perception (1) of closure,
a sense of involvement from the beginning to completion of an activity; and
(2) of the importance of the work performed.
The third dimension, variety, centers on the provision for the worker
to produce through the use of abilities which he personally values. The
presence of the job dimension of variety is expected to afford employees a
sense of self-worth,20 as high variety jobs are considered to elicit several
different skills which may be important to the worker. Hackman and Lawler
emphasize, however, that the indiscriminant addition of operations to make
a job more varied will not insure the fulfillment of esteem and actualization
needs through the evocation of intrinsic rewards; induced job variety should
direct valued skills toward challenging tasks in order that increased motiva-
tion may be reasonably expected. The authors further point out that activa-
tion-theory studies of Scott have suggested that excessive job variety can
have a detrimental effect on performance, since too much variety may bring
on physiological and mental hypertension, serving to impede output.21
Another difficulty with the variety dimension of job content comes
from its interaction with the fourth job dimension put forth by Hackman
and Lawler, feedback. They point out that while considerable degrees of
worker autonomy and task identity may exist in an organization, high-order
need satisfaction will not be accomplished unless the employee receives some
manner of performance evaluation from which judgments of achievement
may be made. Whether following directly from the task performance itself,
or from the observations of coworkers and supervisors, the crucial element
in a feedback mechanism is felt to be that the worker perceives his evalua-
tion to be an accurate reflection of his accomplishments.
Citing a study by Hall and Lawler,22 the authors suggest that the
enhancement of the four job dimensions detailed above may not be inde-
pendent activities: jobs (in the research-scientist field) designed to be high
in variety tended to be low in task identity and feedback. It is natural to
expect that the addition of more and varied -tasks to a job, even of those
testing the worker's valued abilities, must render more difficult an accurate
20. F. Mann and L. R. Hoffman, Automation and the Worker (New York: Henry
Holt & Co., 1960), chap. 3.
21. William E. Scott, Jr., "Activation Theory and Task Design," Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 1 (1966): 3-30.
22. D. Hall and E. Lawler, "Job Design and Job Pressures as Facilitators of Pro-
fessional-Organization Administration," Administrative Science Quarterly 15 (1970): 271-
81.
evaluation on all work aspects; and if the induced variety

tion in several production processes or service situations, a
through the enjoyment of closure would be more difficult
Hackman and Lawler thus argue that the four job dimensions of
autonomy, task identity, variety, and feedback, when combined in such a
way as to alleviate the detrimental interactions among the components, can
establish a job situation in which workers who desire higher-order need satis-
faction may enjoy it through intrinsic rewards. At this point it is useful to
look at the various job designs to see how they incorporate the above four
dimensions. Job enlargement clearly focuses upon the variety and task-
identity dimensions. Through the introduction of varied tasks (increasing
the probability of valued abilities being called into a work situation) and of
the opportunity to realize closure in a work assignment, enlargement designs
seek to widen the range of activity maintained by an individual in order to
reduce monotony while concurrently inducing job meaning. Job enrichment,
incorporating some of these enlargement benefits, strives further to instill
within a worker a feeling of personal responsibility for his output, increasing
his sense of autonomy by allowing him a voice in the planning and organiza-
tional activity accompanying a work effort. The enrichment stipulation that
workers participate in the evaluation of their own performance displays an
obvious concern for establishing a credible feedback loop, allowing increasing
effort and the experience of success on a job to feed back through continuing
internal reward to augment motivation.
Work performance should be improved if enlargement and enrichment
successfully incorporate these motivation-inducing dimensions. Empirical
investigation provides the means to determine if performance increments
accompany the institution of the job designs.
EVIDENCE
Before reviewing the evidence on job enlarg

sary to caution the reader. Some studies poi
under a particular program and leave the i
one may get from this is that productivity
the relationship between satisfaction and p
indicating that a one-to-one relationship h
doubt about an expected positive relationsh
ductivity.23 A review of 20 studies made b
showed that correlations between job satisf
ranged from .86 to -.31, with a median cor
wide variety found in strength and directio
two factors leads one to question the wisdo
ations as proxies for measures of productiv
23. See also A. H. Brayfield and W. H. Crocket, "Employee Attitudes and Em-
ployee Performance," Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955): 396-424.
24. Vroom, pp. 181-86.
JOB ENLARGEMENT
A recent review by Lawler concludes that, while job enlargement has tended
to increase job satisfaction, none of the studies served to show that enlarge-
ment tends to increase either productivity or work quality.25 This tends to
reinforce Herzberg's statement that ". . . this activity merely enlarges the
meaninglessness of the job."26 However, the concept of job enlargement is
not without support on the output dimension. The PPG Industries initiated
an enlargement program during 1969 in a fiberglass manufacturing plant,
focusing the redesign effort on a yarn-producing operation that had been
experiencing losses in operating efficiency.27 Enlargement alterations com-
bined the production and machine-maintenance tasks, eliminating an occu-
pational category. The company expressed satisfaction with the new system,
reporting a 12 percent increase in productivity and evidence of increased
worker job satisfaction.
Further support comes from the work of Schoderbek and Rief.28 They
begin by citing two early attempts at horizontal loading that proved satis-
factory for the innovative companies-an IBM plant (1944)29 and an experi-
ment in the Detroit Edison Company in the 1950s.30 The IBM experience
involved broadening the highly specialized function of the company machin-
ists to include tool refurbishing and machine set-up with the core job of
machine operation. While the enlarged jobs were found to entail increased
costs (wages and equipment), IBM found these expenses more than offset
by benefits of higher-quality production, less idle time, increased job satis-
faction, and elimination of subsequently unnecessary positions. The Detroit
case concerned the enlargement of clerk and maintenance operations (addi-
tional design changes in supervisory positions were more related to enrich-
ment programs), again involving an increase in the variety of tasks per-
formed by individuals to reduce the current job specialization. In both
efforts the firm claimed the benefits of reduced operating costs, fewer ab-
sences, and increased productivity plus the elimination of duplicated opera-
tions and of wasted time.
Schoderbek and Rief proceed to detail their own survey of the use of
enlargement in industry, taking a sample of 210 companies (industrial, insur-
ance, transportation, and utility) for analysis. Initially they found that 169
of their sample did not employ job-enlargement designs, 150 of these never
having considered the adoption of such a program (only six of these com-
panies indicated experiencing detrimental effects from the inauguration of
horizontal loading systems, leading to termination of the attempts). In
analyzing the responses of the 41 companies operating enlargement pro-
grams, the authors point out the major advantages claimed for the designs
25. Lawler, p. 167.

26. Herzberg, in Davis and Taylor, p. 118.
27. Rush, p. 68.
28. See n. 7 above.
29. Ibid., p. 16.
30. Ibid., p. 19.
by the firms: increased job satisfaction, reduced costs, increased quality and
quantity of output, and decreased monotony; overcoming worker resistance
to change, and the incapability of some individuals to grow with the job
were cited as the main problems with enlargement. In determining the
amount of success realized in using enlargement plans, four criteria were
specified-contribution to profit, improved employee attitude, output qual-
ity, output quantity (profit was most often ranked first in importance by
the firms). Considering these indices, none of the 41 firms rated their enlarge-
ment experience as "unsatisfactory"; 10 did not respond here, while 12 found
the design to produce satisfactory returns, 15 reported moderately success-
ful, and four very successful results. Schoderbek and Rief propose that these
satisfaction differences would be a function of individual-firm differences in
such factors as comprehension in planning, initial application of new work
techniques, the capabilities of those involved in renovating the job design,
and worker resistance to change. But they contend that the evidence of firm
satisfaction discovered in their survey would indicate job enlargement to be
a valuable tool in positively affecting worker motivation.
EVIDENCE ON JOB ENRICHMENT
A view of the studies of design alteration involving an increase in the vertical

as well as the horizontal components of jobs also presents a somewhat
ambiguous picture relating design to output and attitudinal measures. A
field study of job enrichment was carried out in 1965 by AT & T in a cus-
tomer correspondence division of the company. Enrichment of an experi-
mental group of jobs was attained through such vertical loading techniques
as a reduction in supervisory review of output, specified increases in worker
accountability for performance, and some allowance for workers' reorganiza-
tion of the departmental task assignments. After 5 months of the trial period,
the company discovered sizable differences shown by the experimental over
the control groups in terms of better performance on a customer service
index, fewer absences, lower costs, and turnover reduction. Another firm-
originated experiment with job design was carried out by the Arapahoe.
Chemical Company in 1968,31 focusing on their research chemist and chemi-
cal manufacturing employment levels. Enrichment changes for the former
group resulted in making each chemist a project manager, responsible for
research design, work scheduling, the determination of equipment, and lab
research performance evaluation (an abrupt departure from the earlier job
content of concentration on producing chemicals to specification). Arapahoe
reported entirely favorable results from this design manipulation-measures
of success cited were prompter deadlines on orders, increasing rates of pro-
ductivity, improved morale among chemists, and reduced turnover. Enrich-
ing production level assignments in the company, again a change resulting
in the adoption by nonsupervisors of some work planning and output evalua-
tion procedures, proved its worth to Arapahoe on the specified criteria of high-
31. Rush, pp. 34-39.
er employee morale and greater return on investment in human resources.

A trial of job-enrichment policies was not so favorable in the 1968
attempt by the Internal Revenue Service.32 Design alterations in the job
of tax-return editing (for computer analysis) were made. Three "G.S." pay
levels in a local IRS office were enriched in various ways: editors were
allowed to verify or inspect their own work, division-of-work decisions were
allowed to be settled by groups of editors, and editors were permitted to
specialize in particular aspects of taxation and serve as consultants for other
examiners. The 6-month experiment ran control groups along with the experi-
mentally enriched sections. Based on criteria of production rates, error rates,
and job-reaction (satisfaction) information, review of the lower two pay
levels found that productivity was greater and errors fewer in the enriched
group, versus the controls, but the sample here was so small as to forbid
meaningful data interpretation. In the highest pay level investigated, output
rates declined for both groups, but after 6 months productivity was signifi-
cantly better for the nonenriched control group, while error rate and reaction
results showed no significant difference. Results somewhat more supportive
of enrichment theory were produced in an early (1954) study by Marks in
which design changes were applied to an assembly-line operation.33 For
experimental groups the following changes were made: the elimination of
conveyor-pacing of work, the inclusion of a complete assembly cycle in the
task assignment of each worker, and worker evaluation of output. Produc-
tivity initially declined after the design installation and later rose to gen-
erally equal (but not greater) preenrichment levels; the significant effect cited
here is a 75 percent reduction in product defects, seen as a significant increase
in quality of output.
Experimental investigations of enrichment job changes are reported
by John Maher,34 who used simulated-work situations in order to maintain
rigorous control over design and work-affect variables. A primary study was
aimed at testing the effects of varying job content (a variety/task identity,
or horizontal input) and discretion (congruent with the autonomy/control
dimension described above) in artificial job tasks. (Maher contends that "if
job enrichment 'works' under such artificial conditions, it must be a powerful
technique.") With performance measured by quantity, quality, and a com-
bined index of the two, the experimenter's hypothesis that greater levels of
enrichment (attained through allowances of higher content and discretion
to jobs) was confirmed. An unexpected job-satisfaction result was discovered,
at the same time, however; jobs high in each of the two enrichment factors,
and those low on both indices, were rated less satisfactory than jobs with
high/low combinations on the loading attributes (Maher conjectures that a
hypothesized underpayment of the enriched workers, due to the system of
32. Ibid., pp. 52-53.

33. See Schoderbek and Rief, pp. 19-24.
34. John Maher, "Job Enrichment, Performance, and Morale in a Simulated Fac-
tory," in New Perspectives in Job Enrichment (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
1971), pp. 159-88.
holding pay constant for all, contributed to this curvilinear effect). In order
to solidify the importance of the enriching technique, Maher in a subsequent
study tested the removal of discretion and content from experimental tasks
(job shrinkage); he found that those workers who lost on these dimensions
ultimately performed significantly worse than did those who remained in
enriched positions throughout the investigation.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The studies reported above demonstrate the mixed nature of the results
encountered by enrichment and enlargement plans in various field trials.
Recognizing that these designs have achieved at least partial success, it
would seem most fruitful at this point to highlight important conceptual
issues to a job-redesign decision: What points should a manager be aware of
when he contemplates the implementation of enlargement or enrichment
changes in the jobs he supervises?
A major factor bearing on the success of any proposed job design con-
cerns the definition of success-whether the emphasis is on quantity pro-
duced or on quality. Performance increments seem more strongly related to
job redesign when a quality index is used. A summary of evidence on this
has been presented by Lawler,3" encompassing 10 studies (1950-66) which
involved the manipulation of job content along both the horizontal and
vertical dimensions. Each of the 10 studies discovered that enrichment re-
sulted in higher-quality work, while only four of the same investigations
registered gains in output quantity.
Lawler attempted to account for the more significant link between job
design and quality of production with two explanations: (1) High quality in
output would be an indispensable condition allowing the realization of suc-
cess to generate such intrinsic rewards as feelings of accomplishment and
self-actualization. But the necessity of greater quantity here is less clear;
Lawler considers it unlikely that an individual must produce greater mea-
sures of 'a product or service in order to feel he has done well. (2) Enrichment
(and enlargement) designs most often require workers to put forth more
effort to produce in amounts equal to preenrichment levels. Despite design
factors inducing greater work effort, due to the acceptance of more tasks and
control functions this increased effort may fall short of earlier standards, at
least in the short-run adjustment period (demonstrated by several job-
design studies). Lawler feels this problem to be less likely in the quality area,
as enriched effort devoted to quality would not be attenuated by the intro-
duction of more tasks or deeper job responsibility.
While Lawler presented no empirical work relating to his two pro-
posals, a job-design investigation conducted by Hackman and Lawler pro-
vides some confirmation.36 On page 284 they state, "The data suggest,
moreover. that 'doing well' is internreted in the iob context as having much
35. Lawler, p. 167.

36. R. Hackman and E. Lawler, "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics,"7 in
Davis and Taylor, pp. 277-96.
more to do with high quality performance than producing large quantities

of work. The core dimensions do not relate either to felt pressures for high
quantity production, or to the actual quantity of work which is produced."
While the mechanism underlying the quantity-quality difference is not yet
established, the practical implication of the dichotomy for managerial deci-
sion making is strongly supported: Job-design changes enjoy a greater proba-
bility of success in effecting performance improvement when quality, rather
than quantity of output, is of interest.
The second issue pertinent to the job-design decision centers on the
intrinsic reward value of enrichment and enlargement and how this reward
might serve as a component in a compensation package offered to a worker.
Research and comment provided by Hulin supplies a useful introduction to
this discussion.37 He has criticized job-enrichment and enlargement policies
by arguing against a general applicability of such programs to all work
situations. Concentrating primarily on job-satisfaction data (as a program-
effectiveness measure), he counters studies that show improvement due to
design changes with investigations finding repetitious, specialized jobs more
satisfying for certain groups. Hulin reports another study which seems to
demonstrate cultural- or reference-group bases for differential satisfaction to
enrichment designs. "Acceptance of a middle-class work ethic" was proposed
as a differentiating factor in a Blood and Hulin study (of blue-collar work-
ers). This acceptance norm was said to include such qualities as a positive
affect for occupational achievement and a belief in the value of hard work.
Predictions that (1) individuals accepting of the norm would show high job
satisfaction after installation of work enrichment while (2) those alienated
from this work ethic would not show high satisfaction were significantly
confirmed. Hulin proposes that such results raise questions about the gen-
erality of job-design proposals for worker motivation.
Hulin's objection to an indiscriminant application of job-design pro-
grams is a valid one, as his results and the mixed review above attest. An
explanation for the failure of enrichment or enlargement to positively affect
certain types of workers might be explained by reference to the Maslow
need hierarchy. It may be argued that an acceptance of middle-class work
norms of achievement striving and value of work is facilitated or made
possible by the relative fulfillment (or the assurance of continued fulfillment)
of lower-level needs. Those who do not enjoy a degree of lower-order need
satisfaction sufficient to permit such an acceptance would necessarily be
oriented toward external rewards. They would thus be "alienated" from a
work-for-itself ethic because security and maintenance needs preclude pri-
mary concern for competence and self-actualization. Therefore, the inaugura-
tion of enriched job content would be likely to produce dissatisfaction if the
increased load does not bring with it more external returns.
The clear implication of this analysis is that a proposed enrichment or
37. Charles Hulin, "Individual Differences in Job Enrichment," in New Perspec-

tives in Job Enrichment, pp. 159-88.
38. Cited in ibid., pp. 177-78.
enlargement plan cannot be evaluated in isolation, apart from knowledge of

the nature of the target work population. Recognizing (1) the need level at
which most of this population operates (individual determination of this for
individual design changes would be optimal, but in most instances impracti-
cal), and (2) the degree to which the existing reward structure assures the
ongoing gratification of the various need levels would be the essential compo-
nents of this knowledge. If current reward systems gratify lower-level needs,
the integration of a job-enrichment or enlargement program into the com-
pensation structure should have a beneficial effect upon work effort. Con-
versely, an attempt to impose an enrichment program within a compensa-
tion system currently insufficient to provide means for satisfying lower-level
needs would be ineffective in stimulating increased motivation.
The term "integrate" was used above in referring to the inclusion of
enrichment or enlargement policies within a compensation program because
the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is quite complex.
The problem is further exacerbated in that intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
are not always easily separable. An important example involves pecuniary
reward-money would immediately be considered extrinsic, but instances
occur in which money comes to be closely tied to the satisfaction of achieve-
ment or personal status needs. This blurring of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinc-
tion when actual rewards are analyzed makes it more difficult to manipu-
late external and internal reward.
C O N C L U S I O N
What is one to conclude from our discussion of job design? We feel tha
enlargement and enrichment can be useful tools for management. However,
the important question that remains is not whether these programs work,
but rather, under what conditions will they be most effective. We have tried
to partially answer this in the previous section. More research is needed to
provide a more complete answer.
Finally, we feel that before one attempts to institute any job-design
program, a careful look at the basic motivational assumptions involved is
called for. We have tried to make clear what these implicit assumptions are.
Further theoretical work is extremely important for understanding concepts
related to growth versus deficit needs, the interaction of intrinsic and extrin-
sic rewards, etc. If applications can be based on sound theory they will ulti-
mately prove more useful. Therefore, improving our theoretical understand-
ing is not simply an academic exercise. As Kurt Lewin is reported to have
said, "There is nothing as practical as a good theory."

2352560

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2352560

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation Theory and Job Design

Author(s): William E. Gallagher, Jr. and Hillel J. Einhorn

Motivation Theory and Job Designt

One element in business life that persists as a management concern is the

performance = ability X motivation,

indicates that a uniformity of ability causes work motivation to become a

* Marketing representative, IBM, Chicago; associate professor, behavioral science,

and the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy in worker motivation has since been

In some areas Volvo and Saab-Scania are using a team-production method,

In this paper we first intend to describe the major job-design ap-

establishment of job characteristics that generate intrinsic rewards. The

FOR JOB DESIGN

In order to explore the theoretical rationale for the current efforts of

10. Abraham Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review 50

Despite the conceptual difficulties discussed above, M

In relating his motive hierarchy to the work situation, Maslow identifies

14. F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New

result in reward. Differential effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reward con-

pletion. Recognizing that individual differences in conceptions of meaning-

evaluation on all work aspects; and if the induced variety

Before reviewing the evidence on job enlarg

25. Lawler, p. 167.

EVIDENCE ON JOB ENRICHMENT

A view of the studies of design alteration involving an increase in the vertical

31. Rush, pp. 34-39.

er employee morale and greater return on investment in human resources.

32. Ibid., pp. 52-53.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

35. Lawler, p. 167.

more to do with high quality performance than producing large quantities

37. Charles Hulin, "Individual Differences in Job Enrichment," in New Perspec-

enlargement plan cannot be evaluated in isolation, apart from knowledge of

You might also like