An Effective Job Design and It’s Impact on an Organization, Essay Example

From a professional perspective, managers continually involve themselves with activities meant to achieve optimal integration of all resources within an organization (Gerald, 2004). One of the major resources of any company is its human resources. These are the employees involved in the productive tasks directed towards achieving an organization’s objectives. In this context, managers, especially the human resource managers direct their concern on optimizing the productive efforts of an organization’s workforce. This managerial duty entails application of numerous scientific management processes aimed at establishing a motivated workforce. Within any industrial setting, a motivated workforce displays improved productivity, hence effective achievement of economic or social goals (Beck, 2010). Numerous factors, either external or internal, contribute towards a certain motivation level of any given workforce. Therefore, managers usually employ appropriate techniques in ensuring subordinates achieve the required level of motivation in their respective duties. In this regard, one such scientific management technique employed is job design (Gerald, 2004).

Job design involves the process of arranging or rearranging work activities in order to reduce the tendency of employees developing a sense of boredom in their tasks (Murphy & Daft, 2009). Within an organization’s structure, the management assigns each employee respective duties and responsibilities. The human resource management outlines these duties during the job analysis process of acquiring employees. This means that managers and supervisors expect each employee to handle a certain set of tasks within any given working period. Based on the psychological makeup of humans, these specific tasks can be tiresome if employees repeat them day-in day-out (Millward, 2005). Repetition of tasks results in job dissatisfaction and eventually lack of motivation. This calls for the need of arrangement and rearrangement of job descriptions in order to maintain the workforce at the required motivation level. Since motivation and satisfaction are psychological concepts, then the element of job design within an organization touches on occupational psychologists. In this regard, occupational psychologists search for information concerning the best motivation technique appropriate for any situation under consideration (Millward, 2005). Numerous theoretical and research information on the element of job design are available. This information proves resourceful to organizational psychologist when they are formulating methods of motivating employees.

Researchers conduct various research exercises all aimed at developing reliable knowledge on the field of job design characteristics. With respect to these research exercises, numerous psychologists have emphasized the need to modify work environments in a manner that results in minimal stress to workers (David, Carolyn, Christine, Peter & Toby, 2010). According to these experts, the nature of work environments directly influences the psychological or mental health of workers. In this case, work stations should be manipulated in a suitable manner in order to reduce the negative effect of stress related problems on work performance (Bond & Bunce, 2001). Research findings strive to establish the effect of job designs on employees’ mental health. According to information obtained from these exercises, there are substantial evidence to develop a rational conclusion of the relationship between job designs and employees’ mental well being. One such research focused on the aspect of job control within the workforce. Job control allows employees the freedom to choose the kind of tasks to perform in any production instance (Bond & Bunce, 2001). The flexibility of activities in this situation allows employees to break the monotonous cycle, hence facilitating development of a composed psychological makeup within the workforce. On the other hand, tasks requiring repetitive and rigorous procedures results in stress. In this case, such tasks experience stress related effects like employee absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, poor performance and sickness absence due to the affected mental health.

Apart from the information acquired from the research exercises, other techniques supporting the importance of job deign are integrated in the various motivation theories used in the management field (Kevin & Andrew, 1993). Theoretical information eliminates the need of carrying out a research exercise. One of such theory is the Herzberg Motivation theory. Herzberg categorized all the motivation factors in a workplace into two groups, the hygiene and motivators. According to Herzberg, employee motivation in workplace depends on motivators, which includes self-actualization, sense of belonging and egotism. In addition, motivation depends on hygiene factors, which are job security and physiological needs (Toby & Sharon, 2005). With respect to the issue of job design, managers should ensure that job responsibilities can address these motivation factors. For example, employees will be motivated if their job guarantees financial security and supplements them with physiological needs like food and rent for their shelter. In addition, a work environment should promote the aspects of self-actualization and ego status. Employees should be allowed proportional freedom to choose the type of production activities which makes them comfortable (Kohn & Schooler, 2009). In addition, every workplace, especially an organization’s culture should promote a sense of belonging by employing techniques like performance recognition and reward schemes.

Another theory subscribing the concept of job design is Hackman and Oldman’s Job Characteristic Model. This theoretical approach acknowledges the relationship between the task itself and employee motivation (Spector, 2007). According to these psychologists, the nature of duties and responsibilities directly influence employee motivation. Tiresome and repetitive tasks results in dissatisfaction while challenging tasks enhances motivation.  Job Characteristic Model advocates three major components of a challenging task. First, a task should be meaningful to the one performing the required procedures. Secondly, tasks should depict a sense of responsibility to the performer. Every duty should present a situation where an employee forecasts his or her success in performing a given task. Finally, employees should be in touch with the outcome of every performed task. This will enable them learn from their mistakes, thus take corrective measures. In this regard, managers should recognize the need to establish a balance between the repetitive and the challenging nature of jobs. Managers can achieve this by designing sets of work activities which ensures inclusion of all the tree motivation components (Spector, 2007).

Karasek’s demand and control model illustrates the relationship between the demand and control nature of duties to employee motivation. In this theory, Karasek assert that there are four categories of jobs within the work environment. These include the high strain jobs, passive jobs, low strain jobs and the active jobs. The difference in these depends on the composition with respect to the level of demand and control from an employee’s position (James, Frank & Corey, 2003). High straining jobs have high demand of requirements and low control on the freedom available to perform duties. These jobs results in stress. Passive jobs have both low control and low demand. Such jobs results in low employee motivation because they are no challenging. Low straining jobs have high control freedom and low demand while active jobs have a high demand on the required skills and a high freedom of control (Murphy & Daft, 2009). Active jobs results in motivation due to its challenging nature. Therefore, managers should develop the appropriate set of duties that will motivate workers during job design exercises.

Kelly’s Twin Track Model entails considering the psychological requirements of any task and selecting the most appropriate employees to handle specified duties. This involves taking into consideration the psychological makeup of employees and assigning duties according to employees’ personality traits. All the processes involved directs to achieving the required employee motivation. Motivating employees should relate to the mechanisms developed to facilitate accomplishment of an organization’s goals. Therefore, managers should arrange or rearrange jobs after considering a company’s objectives (Beck, 2010).

After careful evaluation of all these four theories, I can objectively point out various shortcomings that may result from their applications. In the first place, the concepts contained in these theories do not consider other factors that determine employee motivation in a work place. In this regard, other factors like the cultural diversity and social background of workers influence motivation within the workforce. In this context, all the four theories focus only on the psychological aspect of work (Murphy & Daft, 2009). This stands contrary to the actual factors determining motivation within a workplace. Therefore, these theories cannot act as objective and reliable techniques of achieving motivation. They should only act as a guide on the psychological aspects of achieving a mentally healthy workforce. On the other hand, research findings can serve best in supplementing the required information concerning the relationship between health, productivity, and job arrangement within a workplace. In this regard, a mix of research and theoretical information can supplement reliable information to occupational psychologists in their work.

Reference List

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (2009). Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effect. Journal of American Sociology, 87, 46-52.

Spector, P. E. (2007). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Murphy, H & Daft, L. J. (2009). Organization: Theory and Design. California: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Kevin, D & Andrew, G. (1993). Occupational stress, Social support, Job control and Psychological well-being. Cranfield: Cranfield Press.

James, K. H, Frank, L. S & Corey, L. M. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup Studies. Washington D.C. Cengage Learning EMEA.

Beck, C. R. (2010). Motivation: Theories and Principles. Pittsburg: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Toby, D. W & Sharon, K. P. (2005). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. New York: SAGE Publishing.

Gerald, C. A. (2004). Management: Theory and Practice. California: Cengage Learning EMEA.

Bond, F. W & Bunce, D. (2001). Job control mediates change in a work re-organization: Intervention for stress reduction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6 (4). PP 290-302.

David, J. H, Carolyn, M. A, Christine, A.S, Peter, T & Toby, D. W. (2010). The mediating role of job characteristics in job re-design interventions: A serendipitous quasi-experiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 31, 84-105.

Millward, J. L. (2005). Understanding Occupational & Organizational Psychology. New York: SAGE Publishing.