Classical approach
In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith wrote about the economic advantages of a division of labor. He argued that a person's skill and dexterity were improved by repeatedly performing a task; that the less frequently employees change activities, the greater the time and production savings; and that work-related inventions take place when job specialization occurs. His concern, then, was in designing jobs that consisted of a limited number of tasks.
In 1832, Englishman Charles Babbage saw job design as a way of paying for the exact skills used. By simplifying jobs so that the tasks involved in any one job were of the same level of complexity, management could avoid paying for a difficult skill that was used only sparingly in the performance of a piece of work. In this way, employees would use one skill repeatedly in the performance of a job. Management would pay the worker according to the difficulty of the task performed.
In 1911, American mechanical engineer Frederick W Taylor focused on dividing managers' tasks from workers' tasks. He contributed to both vertical and horizontal specialization. Vertical specialization involves removing planning and controlling activities from those who perform the tasks. Horizontal specialization involves the creation of repetitive jobs that require low levels of skill.
Through these methods production was increased, efficiency was maintained, and there was greater control and standardization of the completed work. To what extent this was a result of the way jobs were designed, or of external factors such as new technologies, is difficult to ascertain.
Neoclassical approach
In the 1950s, writers such as Chris Argyris and Douglas McGregor suggested more of a humanistic approach to job design. They wrote that employees who perform low-skill, simplified jobs will eventually find them monotonous. This will lead to boredom and job dissatisfaction, they argue, which will translate into lateness, absenteeism, and less than desirable performance on the job.
To achieve maximum benefits for the organization, job design must take into account the feelings, needs and motives that employees bring to the workplace. Unless these needs are met in the design of jobs, employee productivity will suffer.
Modern approach
Integration of the neoclassical perspective has led to the development of job enlargement and job enrichment programs. Several theoretical models have been developed to explain the relationship between the employee and the job being performed. Job enrichment, for example, can be viewed as an outgrowth of American psychologist Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory of motivation.
Herzberg's research indicates that over 80 per cent of the factors contributing to job satisfaction come from the job itself: achievement, recognition and responsibility. On the other hand, 2/3 of the factors contributing to job dissatisfaction involved organizational policy and administration, supervision and working conditions. Success with these factors would not ensure job satisfaction, but their absence would prevent it.
The behaviorists, led by BF Skinner, believe that reinforcement is the key to achieving performance. They view job design as a way of making the task more intrinsically reinforcing, thus leading to higher levels of performance.
American sociologist William Scott offered an activation theory based on physiology to explain motivation. He holds that cues received from the environment are diffused over areas of the brain to arouse and activate the individual. The greater the variety and stimulation in a task, the higher the state of arousal. Thus, enriched jobs led to more cues from the environment, which lead to more arousal, which leads to more motivation. The reverse is also true.
A fourth theoretical explanation of why complex task design will lead to more motivated employees is based on business professor VH Vroom's expectancy theory. This is based on the idea that behavior is determined by an individual's perception of what he or she expects to happen, in conjunction with how important that outcome is to the individual. An individual will behave in a certain way if he or she believes that will result in an important outcome. This theory holds that the worker perceives an enriched job will lead to an intrinsic reward, so the employee is more committed to the job and performs better.
Researchers have approached the subject from different directions, but there seems to be agreement that extreme job simplification leads to boredom, job dissatisfaction and decreased productivity. Resulting programs have three common elements: (a) workers should be given as much freedom as possible to control their work while developing their skills; (b) jobs should be made up of tasks that are varied, challenging and meaningful; (c) and a sharing, team concept should replace the vertical breakdown of jobs, in which a supervisor does all the planning and controlling while the worker performs all the tasks.
- 1367 reads
