Job vertically loading offer the employee’s tasks and responsibilities previously were devoted only to managers. particularly, vertical loading build on employees empowerment to set schedules, determine methods for their work, and deciding when and how to perform quality check on the produced work , it’s employees right to decide about when start and stop the work, taking breaks, and assigning priorities, seeking solutions to solve problems on their own, instead of calling for a manager immediately when problems arise. offering people such responsibility result in increases the level of autonomy the job offers these employees. (Lunenburg 2011)
Instead of keeping many workers each of them performs a separate part of a whole job, having each worker perform part of the entire job. Using natural grouping enhance skill variety, task identity, and task significance. For example, A cabinetmaker who designs a piece of furniture then selects the proper wood, builds the cabinet, and finishes it to perfection has high task identity. A nurse who manages the diverse requirements of many patients in an intensive care unit of a hospital has high task significance. (Lunenburg 2011)
Formation of Natural Teams
The formation of natural teams combines individual jobs into a formal unit (e.g., a division, team, or department). The criteria for such groupings include geographic, business type, organizational, alphabetic, and customer groups. Sales personnel might be assigned to a particular region of the state or country (geographic). Insurance claims adjusters might be assigned to teams that serve specific types of businesses, such as manufacturing, retail, or utilities (a type of business). Word processors might be assigned work that originates in a particular department (organizational). File clerks could be held responsible for materials specified alphabetically (A to E, F to me, etc.) (alphabetic). Consulting firm employees might be assigned to specific industrial or commercial accounts (customer groups). (Lunenburg 2011)
Opening Feedback Channels
Designing jobs should consider providing employees with as much feedback as can form their managers. Because employees remain in their work nearly most of their time so they want to know how they are doing.it’s needed to informed regularly because their performance may vary, and the only way to make appropriate adjustments to our performance is to know first how we actually did. Customers, supervisors, or coworkers could be a source for feedback. (Lunenburg 2011)
Establishing Client Relationships
JCM model claim that designing jobs in the way that the people who perform the job come in contact with the person who received the service. Designing jobs in such a way not only support the employee by providing feedback but also provide skill variety, task significance and enhance autonomy. (Lunenburg 2011)
Existing theoretical extensions for JCM
The JCM theory of work design has been extended and developed in several important ways. First, it has been recognized that the five job characteristics identified in the JCM are relatively narrow and that there are other important attributes of work that affect its motivating potential and additional variables have been suggested by several researchers , Parker et al. (2001) proposed the Elaborated Job Characteristics Model, identifying a broader set of job characteristics (e.g. social work characteristics, such as interdependence, and different forms of autonomy, such as autonomy over working hours) as well as an expanded set of outcomes (e.g. customer satisfaction, work–home con?ict, innovation) and additional moderators and mediators.
Parker and colleagues suggested that different work characteristics will be particularly salient in different settings and job roles. Some workers, such as management consultants, might already experience high levels of autonomy, whilst others, such as teleworkers, might be more tightly controlled and therefore benefit from increased autonomy. In her wider work on job design, Sharon Parker argues that increasing autonomy is a particularly important mechanism for job redesign, raising levels of motivation and self-efficacy.
A recent analysis of, Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) expanded the ?ve core work characteristics into 21 job characteristics. These characteristics included in Morgeson and Humphrey’s WDQ model. Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) model included the development of a new work design questionnaire, the WDQ. Because this is a comprehensive model, drawing on previous models of work design, we have made this model the framework within which to discuss the intersection of age and job and work design. Morgeson and Humphrey identified four different
Motivational task characteristics: how the work itself is accomplished and the range and nature of tasks associated with a particular job (similar to those in the JCM. Level of autonomy, task variety, significance, identity, and feedback from the job are the specific dimensions that are adapted to study these characteristics, following the original model of Hackman and Oldham (1980).
Knowledge characteristics: the kinds of knowledge, skill, and ability used by an individual to execute the job. The complexity (difficulty versus simplicity of a job), the variety of skills and abilities to be used for a good performance, the amount of information processes (active use of cognitive abilities) during the work activities, the problem solving processes for assuming decisions and generate innovative ideas, and the level of specialization required (deep knowledge and skills in a specific working area) are the dimensions composing this second category of work characteristics.
Social characteristics: types and quality of social interactions required in doing a job. This category comprises social support from supervisors and colleagues in obtaining help, advice, and assistance; feedback from others related to the quality of performance; interdependence that reflects the degree to which the job depends on others and others depend on it to complete the work; interaction outside the organization indicates the degree of contact that the employee maintains with clients, suppliers and other external persons.
Contextual characteristics: the physical description of the workplace and the technological conditions in which the tasks are executed: ergonomics, physical demands, work conditions (temperature, noise, workspace density, etc.), and equipment used are the descriptors of this category. We note that these contextual characteristics are somewhat closer to traditional job specifications rather than motivational or psychologically based characteristics.
(Humphrey et al., 2007) the meta-analysis found that all or most of the five core task characteristics identified in JCM related to the outcomes of job satisfaction, growth need satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation, in addition to several other beneficial organizational outcomes. The result also supports the hypotheses that a large number of job characteristics is vital to impact work motivation, employees performance, job satisfaction, and employees behaviors of withdrawal. However still motivating task characteristics explained 34% of the variance of job satisfaction while the social work characteristics only related to job satisfaction, and explaining 17% of the variance in this outcome. Social features of the work also related to organizational commitment and turnover intentions, when controlling the task and knowledge characteristics effects
Second, researchers introduce new intervening variables to explain the relationship between the characteristics of the work and behavioral outcomes beyond the critical psychological states claimed in the JCM. In specific, the concept of “psychological empowerment” draw attention as a critical state of intrinsic task motivation (Parker and Ohly, 2014).
Third, a wider set of performance outcomes researched beyond the focusing on the efficiency and task performance, for example proactive behavior (Parker, et al., 2006),creativity (Amabile ; Gryskiewicz, 1989 ) ,innovation (Axtell et al., 2000), innovative work behavior (De Jong ; Kemp, 2003; Dorenbosch, van Engen, ; Verhagen, 2005).
Fourth, emerged of a new perspective to work design which extended the traditional motivational approach to the relational approach to work design. Grant (2007) assert that, designing employees work such that employees interact, or connect in some way, with the bene?ciaries of their work, will in turn promote their attitudes, motivation, and performance, when employees allowed to connect with bene?ciaries, they are likely to empathize with these bene?ciaries, and most likely to establish a stronger affective commitment towards them, which in turn promote higher levels of effort, persistence and helping behaviors of the employees’ Evidence is shown in several ?eld experiments (Grant 2007, 2008).
In contrast with the JCM of work design theory the relational perspective focus on designing work stimulation the prosaically motivation and the desire to help others rather than emphasizing intrinsic motivation in the former, the key contribution of relational perspective that, when designing enriched job is untenable for some reason, designing relational work can be considered to increase the meaning of work (Parker et al. 2013).
2.3.2. Designing Work for well-being and Physical and Mental Health
While the mentioned perspectives were developed and going on, there were an independent and an equally important focus emerged advocating the effect of work design on physical and mental health. The connection between work design and employee health has been of interest for decades and still continued attention is required for designing healthy work today due to the increase of complexity, demands, and pressure in several jobs and heightened concerns about health issues in society.
Karasek’s Job Demand-Control Model
Karasek’s (1979) job demands-control model dominant research on job stress, as well as on health-related outcomes of work design, Key assumption of the theory that demands i.e. (workload and role stressors) and the beneficial aspects i.e. (job control, including autonomy and skill variety) interact such that control can neutralize the negative effects of demands, and strain will be high in cases where demands are high with low (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014)
Karasek argued that job demands and job control should be tested together, because the impact of each may be basically different depending on the level of the other. Particularly, Karasek demonstrated his model on four types of jobs: Passive jobs: characterized by low demands and low control, while high-strain jobs: with low job control and high job demands, low-strain jobs: with high job control and low demands, while active jobs: have both high job control and high job demands ( Bakker and Demerouti,2014)
The mentioned types located along with two continua. Low- and high-strain jobs are modeled on a continuum from low strain to high strain, which over time may result in stress and health problems, while passive and active jobs are modeled on a growth-related continuum ranging from low to high activation, fostering motivation, learning, and development. (Bakker and Demerouti, 2014)
Warr’s Vitamin Model
Warr (1987) further expanded on the number of job characteristics that may influence people’s well-being. Going beyond the design of jobs, Warr examined environmental aspects that may serve as vitamins for people’s well-being, in or outside the context of work. Well-being is herein broadly defined, including affective well-being, which is arranged around three axes—pleasure and displeasure, anxiety versus comfort, and depression versus enthusiasm—as well as competence, aspiration, autonomy, and integrated functioning of feeling harmonious.
In total, Warr discerned nine different broad environmental factors that affect aspects of well-being, including 1. Availability of money or a decent salary. 2. Physical security (good working conditions and working material). 3. Environmental clarity (low job insecurity, high role clarity, predictable outcomes, and task feedback). 4. A valued social position associated with, for example, task significance and the possibility to contribute to society. 5. Contact with others or the possibility of having (good) social relations at work, being able to depend on others, and working on a nice team. 6. Variety or having changes in one’s task context and social relations. 7. Externally generated goals or a challenging workload, with low levels of role conflict and conflict or competition with others. 8. Opportunity for skill use and acquisition or the potential to apply and extend one’s skills. 9. Opportunities for personal control or having autonomy, discretion, and opportunities to participate (Warr, 1987).
Intriguingly, Warr was the first to recognize that these job characteristics are not necessarily linearly related to employee well-being. Some job characteristics, and more specifically money, safety, and a valued social position, are the vitamins C and E. First, they affect employee well-being linearly, but only a certain amount, with their effects, plateaus maintaining a constant effect (CE). The other job characteristics, however, are vitamins A and D and affect employee well-being in a curvilinear way: both low and high levels are detrimental, with any addition beyond a certain level leading to decrease in wellbeing (AD).
In assuming these relations, Warr captured the widely held assumption that there can be too much of a good thing, for example, while some amount of workload can be beneficial, too much workload may be detrimental for employees’ well-being, in line with Hackman and Oldham, Warr proposed that some employees are more susceptible to the impact of particular job characteristics than others, because their personal values or abilities fit better with particular job characteristics.
The Job Demands-Resources Model
The job demands-resources model (JD-R model; Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz-Vergel, 2014; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) aimed to provide an integrative view of job characteristics. At the core of the model lies the various job characteristics that may impact employees, which can be meaningfully classified as job demands and job resources. Job demands are defined as “those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312).
They are not necessarily negative but turn into job stressors when they exceed workers’ capacities, which makes it hard for them to recover. Job resources are defined as the “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that … (1) are functional in achieving work goals, (2) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, or (3) stimulate personal growth, learning, and development” (Bakker ; Demerouti, 2007, p. 312).
Just like the vitamin model, the JD-R model focuses on employee well-being as a crucial outcome. both negative (i.e., burnout) and positive (i.e., work engagement) aspects of well-being are considered as the crucial pathways through which job demands and job resources relate to a host of other outcomes, including employee physical health and wellbeing, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and different types of behaviors, including in-role and extra-role performance, as well as counterproductive behavior (for an overview, see Van den Broeck, Van Ruysseveldt, Vanbelle, ; De Witte, 2013).
Job demands are considered the main cause of burnout. In being continuously confronted with job demands, employees can become emotionally exhausted because they put all their energy into the job. Under particular situations, such as when all their effort is in vain, they likely start withdrawing from their job as a means to protect themselves and become cynical, which is part of the burnout response. Job resources can also have a (limited) direct negative relationship with burnout (Schaufeli ; Bakker, 2004), but they are most crucial for the development of vigor and dedication, the main components of work engagement. Job demands and job resources are also assumed to interact, so that high levels of resources may attenuate (i.e., buffer) the association between job demands and burnout, while job demands are said to strengthen (i.e., boost) the association between job resources and work engagement.
Within the JD-R model, individual factors are modeled as personal resources, which are defined as malleable lower-order, cognitive-affective personal aspects reflecting a positive belief in oneself or the world (van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker, ; Schaufeli, 2010). As in the job characteristics model, personal resources can represent the underlying process through which job resources prevent burnout and foster work engagement (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, ; Schaufeli, 2007), moderate, and—more specifically—buffer the health-impairing impact of job demands, as job resources do, and they may serve as antecedents of the job characteristics, preventing the occurrence of job demands and increasing the (perceived) availability of job resources.
Evidence supporting the JD-R model is abundant, but the model is used mostly in the European literature. Job demands and job resources are convincingly shown to relate to burnout and work engagement (Nahrgang et al., 2011), while some evidence is provided for their interactions and the role of personal resources (Van den Broeck et al., 2013).