Roadblocks to implementation

Available under Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Several barriers exist to implementing job redesign programs. Prominent among these are incompleteness of the evidence, the attitudes of top management, reluctance of first-level supervisors, union influence, and the restrictiveness of industrial engineering.

Job redesign programs have been criticized as being poorly designed and lacking in empirical validity. Most of the studies present indirect evidence at best of the effects of job design on productivity. There is also the problem that certain jobs cannot be enriched beyond a limited point. Dishes have to be washed; pots have to be scrubbed; potatoes have to be peeled.

Perhaps the most damning criticism is that many workers do not feel alienated from their jobs and desire no additional responsibility or involvement in the workplace. Job enrichment assumes that intrinsic motivation is crucial in the long run and is sought from work. This will not work, however, for employees who are more interested in extrinsic motivation such as a higher paycheck or who seek their intrinsic motivation in hobbies or their pursuits off the job. The predominant issue in collective bargaining is still wages. For many, the standard of living may be more important than the quality of work.

The philosophy that supports job design is a belief in worker participation in controlling job functions. This requires an organizational climate in which employees are valued and respected. The implementation of such a climate entails having managers who hold a theory Y set of assumptions about employees. Management professor Douglas McGregor developed the idea that theory Y managers believe that employees enjoy their work, act in a responsible manner, and are genuinely interested in contributing toward the goals of the company. Some research exists that in fact many organizations are still structured and run by theory X managers, who assume that workers are inherently lazy, lack responsibility, and require close supervision. One major study of 3,000 managers found that although a majority supported the idea of participative decision making, most maintained that employees are not capable of initiative or leadership, avoid responsibility, and prefer to be led. 1

For others it is illogical that managers should support this program. Job redesign has those with power make concessions to those without power. The common tendency is for those at the top of an organization to make their job as easy as possible, thereby making the jobs of those below them more difficult. It is difficult for some to assume that managers will reverse this tendency willingly.

Implementation of any job design program, and therefore its success, depends on the support of first-level supervisors. There are good reasons supervisors would resist such a program and either overtly or covertly work for its failure. Over the years, the amount of discretion in the supervisor's job has declined. As organizations have grown, specialists have taken over functions that were in the supervisor's purview. Chief among these is the personnel function. In large part because of the increasingly difficult legal environment surrounding how employees can be dealt with, specialists now perform many of the activities that supervisors formerly dealt with.

Associated with this is the need to treat employees fairly. Uniformity of treatment is assured by centralizing the formation of company rules and control of their application. This dilutes the power, discretion, and amount of enrichment inherent in the supervisor's job. Job design puts pressure on supervisors to give employees more autonomy and responsibility; but doing that reduces the autonomy of the supervisor. It is argued that many employees seek greater autonomy. Surely so do supervisors! The result may be less than full supervisory support for any job redesign program.

In fact, research has shown in one case that supervisors of workers who experienced job enrichment experienced less satisfaction themselves regarding job security, job challenges, interpersonal relations, and the meaningfulness of work.

Many union officials resist job design programs on the grounds that they are no more than efforts to increase productivity at the expense of jobs and wages. In a way, of course, they are correct. The task is to increase productivity. Designing jobs that are intrinsically rewarding also reduces the need for a union or any other body to attend to the needs of employees. Some union officials refuse as a matter of principle to support anything management proposes.

The techniques of industrial engineering and quality of work are different. Industrial engineering emphasizes task fragmentation and specialization, with little employee input. Proponents of the quality of work are interested in changing jobs in order to increase worker involvement and responsibility.

The evidence to support these two opposing positions varies. Industrial engineers are capable of presenting top management with facts and figures to justify their proposals. Those who support the quality of work have, in the past, relied too often on subjective appeals based on the humanization of work.