Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature

Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features

  • A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature by Stephen E. Humphrey, Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Frederick P. Morgeson.
  • The study meta-analytically examined hypotheses to test and extend work design theory by integrating motivational, social, and work context characteristics.
  • Results from 259 studies with 219,625 participants showed that 14 work characteristics explained an average of 43% of the variance in the 19 worker attitudes and behaviors examined.
    • Motivational characteristics explained 25% of the variance in subjective performance, 2% in turnover perceptions, 34% in job satisfaction, 24% in organizational commitment, and 26% in role perception outcomes.
    • Social characteristics explained incremental variances of 9% in subjective performance, 24% in turnover intentions, 17% in job satisfaction, 40% in organizational commitment, and 18% in role perception outcomes.
    • Work context characteristics explained incremental variances of 4% in job satisfaction and 16% in stress.
  • The study suggests opportunities for continued development of work design theory and practice.
  • Keywords: work design, job design, satisfaction, performance, social support.

History of Work Design

  • Early writings focused on how the division of labor could increase worker efficiency and productivity (Babbage, 1835; Smith, 1776).
  • The first systematic treatment was by Gilbreth (1911) and Taylor (1911), who focused on specialization and simplification to maximize worker efficiency.
  • Problems with designing work to maximize efficiency included decreased employee satisfaction, increased turnover and absenteeism, and difficulties in managing employees in simplified jobs (Hackman & Lawler, 1971).
  • Researchers developed theories focusing on the motivating features of work (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959; Turner & Lawrence, 1965).
  • The motivational approach has been influential for 30 years (Morgeson & Campion, 2003).
  • Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics model has been cited nearly 2,000 times (ISI Web of Knowledge, 2006).
  • Although the model is over 30 years old and has criticisms (Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Roberts & Glick, 1981; Taber & Taylor, 1990), it remains central in work design theory.
  • The success of the motivational approach has had two effects:
    • Focused research attention on a limited set of motivational work features (e.g., skill variety, autonomy), neglecting social environment and work context.
    • Contributed to a general decline of research and theorizing on work design in I/O psychology and management.

Decline of Work Design Research

  • Work design research published in top I/O psychology and management journals declined in the late 1980s and has remained low since, but appears to be active outside of the top journals.
  • Scholars in philosophy of science have noted that research programs have fertile periods, followed by the accumulation of unsolved problems that require changes to the traditional perspective (Bechtel, 1988; Kuhn, 1970; Laudan, 1977).
  • Meta-analytic techniques can be used to clarify and synthesize existing empirical findings, test hypotheses, and point to the best direction for new theoretical developments (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
  • The goal of the meta-analytic review is to summarize and extend the literature on work design for individual-level jobs.

Definition of Work Design Characteristics

  • Work design characteristics are defined as the attributes of the task, job, and social and organizational environment.
  • The focus is on work design rather than “job design” to recognize the link between a job and the broader work environment (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).

Goals of the Meta-Analytic Review

  • Replicate and extend Fried and Ferris’s (1987) meta-analytic summary of motivational characteristics.
    • Includes almost 20 years of additional research studies and 14 additional work design outcomes.
    • The first formal meta-analytic test of Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) mediation model.
  • Develop a theoretical model examining four social characteristics of work and three work context characteristics.
    • Areas long neglected in work design research (Grant, 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
    • Social characteristics inspired by Grant, 2007 and Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006 while work context characteristics that have traditionally been examined in the human physiology and engineering literatures (Campion & Thayer, 1985; Parker & Wall, 2001).
  • Assess the amount of unique variance in work outcomes explained by social characteristics and work context characteristics beyond what is explained by motivational characteristics.

Testing and Extending Work Design Theory

  • Testing the Job Characteristics Model
    • Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that five work characteristics make jobs more satisfying for workers:
      • Autonomy (i.e., the freedom an individual has in carrying out work).
      • Skill variety (i.e., the extent to which an individual must use different skills to perform his or her job).
      • Task identity (i.e., the extent to which an individual can complete a whole piece of work).
      • Task significance (i.e., the extent to which a job impacts others’ lives).
      • Feedback from the job (i.e., the extent to which a job imparts information about an individual’s performance).
    • These work characteristics were expected to increase positive behavioral (e.g., job performance) and attitudinal (e.g., job satisfaction) outcomes and decrease negative behavioral outcomes (e.g., absenteeism).
    • Fried and Ferris (1987) found that these five characteristics were strongly related to job satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal work motivation, with weaker relationships to job performance and absenteeism.
    • Hypothesis 1: Autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback from the job will be:
      • (a) positively related to job satisfaction,
      • (b) positively related to growth satisfaction,
      • (c) positively related to internal work motivation,
      • (d) positively related to job performance, and
      • (e) negatively related to absenteeism.
    • Hypothesis 2: Autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback from the job will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
    • Hackman and Oldham (1976) suggested that motivational work characteristics impact behavioral and attitudinal outcomes through their influence on three critical psychological states:
      • Experienced meaningfulness (i.e., the degree to which an employee feels the job has value and importance).
      • Experienced responsibility (i.e., the degree to which an employee feels liable and accountable for job results).
      • Knowledge of results (i.e., the degree to which the employee is aware of his or her level of performance).
    • Specifically, skill variety, task identity, and task significance are thought to impact experienced meaningfulness, autonomy is thought to impact experienced responsibility, and feedback from the job is thought to impact knowledge of results.
    • Hypothesis 3: Experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results will mediate the relationships between:
      • (a) autonomy,
      • (b) skill variety,
      • (c) task identity,
      • (d) task significance, and
      • (e) feedback from the job and the behavioral and attitudinal outcomes.
    • Johns et al. suggested that experienced meaning was a “particularly encompassing psychological state,” as it served as a mediator for all five motivational characteristics.

Extending the Job Characteristics Model

  • Additional Motivational Characteristics
    • Five other motivational work characteristics have been discussed in the literature: task variety, information processing, job complexity, specialization, and problem solving.
    • Task variety (i.e., the extent to which an individual performs different tasks at his or her job) is different from skill variety, such that skill variety focuses on the skills necessary to perform a job, whereas task variety focuses on the specific tasks performed.
    • Hypothesis 4: Task variety will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
    • In contrast to task-focused motivational characteristics, several motivational characteristics are primarily concerned with the knowledge demands of work. These include information processing, job complexity, specialization, and problem solving.
      • Information processing is the extent to which a job necessitates an incumbent to focus on and manage information.
      • Job complexity is the extent to which a job is multifaceted and difficult to perform.
      • Specialization is the extent to which a job involves the performance of tasks requiring specific knowledge and skill.
      • Problem solving is the extent to which a job requires the production of unique solutions or ideas.
    • Hypothesis 5: Information processing, job complexity, specialization, and problem solving will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
    • Hypothesis 6: Work scheduling autonomy, work methods autonomy, and decision-making autonomy will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
  • Additional Motivational Characteristics
    • Early work design research recognized the importance of the social environment (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Turner & Lawrence, 1965).
    • Recently, researchers have noted that social characteristics are important components of work (Parker & Wall, 2001) that are nonredundant with motivational characteristics (Grant, 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).
    • Interdependence is the extent to which a job is contingent on others’ work and other jobs are dependent on the work of the focal job.
    • Feedback from others is the extent to which other organizational members provide performance information.
    • Social support is the extent to which a job provides opportunities for getting assistance and advice from either supervisors or coworkers (Karasek, 1979; Karasek et al., 1998) and includes friendship opportunities on the job (Sims et al., 1976).
    • Interaction outside the organization is the extent to which a job requires an incumbent to communicate with people (e.g., suppliers or customers) external to the organization.
    • Hypothesis 7: Interdependence, feedback from others, social support, and interaction outside the organization will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
  • Work Context Characteristics
    • Work context characteristics, which reflect the broad performance context, have been virtually ignored in the fields of I/O psychology and management (Morgeson & Campion, 2003).
    • Physical demands reflect the amount of physical activity or effort necessary for a job.
    • Work conditions reflect aspects of the work environment such as health hazards, temperature, and noise (Campion & McClelland, 1991; Edwards, Scully, & Brtek, 1999).
    • Ergonomics reflects the extent to which work permits appropriate posture and movement.
    • Hypothesis 8: Physical demands will be:
      • (a) negatively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) negatively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) positively related to negative behavioral outcomes.
    • Hypothesis 9: Work conditions and ergonomics will be:
      • (a) positively related to positive behavioral outcomes,
      • (b) positively related to positive attitudinal outcomes, and
      • (c) negatively related to negative behavioral outcomes.

Integrating Motivational, Social, and Work Context Characteristics

  • Hypothesis 10: (a) Social characteristics and (b) work context characteristics will explain unique variance in the behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, above and beyond motivational characteristics.

Method

  • Literature Search
    • A literature search was conducted to identify published articles, conference papers, and doctoral dissertations that were related to the design of work. The articles were identified through computer-based searches of the PsycINFO (1887–2004) and Web of Science ISI (1970 –2004) databases.
  • Inclusion Criteria
    • The abstracts obtained from this initial search were reviewed for appropriate content and considered for inclusion in the meta-analysis. After reading the abstracts, we eliminated studies without data (theoretical work or literature reviews) and studies outside of the work context.
  • Meta-Analytic Procedures
    • We used the Schmidt–Hunter psychometric meta-analysis method (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to conduct the meta-analytic review. For studies with multiple measures of the same construct, we followed Hunter and Schmidt’s recommendations by creating composite correlation values.

Results

  • Interrelationships of Work Design Characteristics Table 1, the corrected intercorrelations were positive in sign (with the exception of the relationships with the two work context characteristics) and generally moderate in magnitude (mean .25).
  • Motivational Characteristics Hypothesis 1, Table 2 presents the results of these analyses. First, all five motivational characteristics were positively related to job satisfaction (mean .41), growth satisfaction (mean .55), and internal work motivation (mean .39).
  • Social Characteristics Hypothesis 7, no studies have investigated the relationship between these social characteristics and objective performance. Both interdependence ( .18; 95% CI .05 .18 .31) and
  • Work Context Characteristics Hypothesis 8, we only had enough studies to meta-analyze the relationship between physical demands and job satisfaction. Physical demands was negatively related to job satisfaction ( –.17; 95% CI –.26 –.17 –.08), providing limited support for Hypothesis 8b.
  • Incremental Contribution of Social and Work Context Characteristics Hypothesis 10 Table 5, three social characteristics explained an additional 9% of the variance in subjective performance above and beyond the 25% of the variance explained by the seven motivational characteristics.

Discussion

  • Goals of the Meta-Analytic Review Meta-analytic techniques are uniquely suited for summarizing and clarifying past research, testing new hypotheses at a qualitatively different level, and advancing theory (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
  • People also find work meaningful if they are able to pursue cherished goals (Klinger, 1977; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Thus, if one views the development of meaning as a process of setting and pursuing important goals, having both autonomy and feedback from the job is essential. Successful goal completion requires that employees have flexibility in how goals are pursued (Locke & Latham, 1990).
  • Incremental Contribution of Social and Work Context Characteristics First, work conditions explained an incremental 16% of the variance in stress. The variance explained by this single work characteristic was larger than the variance explained by either the five motivational characteristics or three social characteristics, highlighting the power of work conditions to influence work outcomes.

Future Directions

  • Our review suggests several future directions for research. First, although the theories of work design reside at the job level, the studies of work design have been conducted at the individual level.
  • Second, most research on work design has been conducted such that employees evaluated both the work characteristics and perceptual outcomes.
  • Third, although we worked to be as comprehensive as possible in our summary of the work design literature, we were limited by the available research.
  • Fourth, as the focus of our research was on how individual job incumbents reacted to the characteristics of work, rather than on how teams reacted to their design, our study excluded team-level research.
  • Fifth, the nature of work has been marked by dramatic technological changes, increased competition, and workforce composition changes (Howard, 1995a; Morgeson & Campion, 2003; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001).
  • Sixth, our implicit assumption is that the relationship between work characteristics and well-being outcomes is linear. However, some research has suggested that the true relationship may be nonlinear.
  • Finally, our results provide clear evidence that there are multiple options for redesigning work to achieve certain work outcomes.

Conclusion

  • This meta-analytic review of the work design literature integrated motivational, social, and work context characteristics. We reviewed 677 articles, coded 259 empirical articles, and meta-analyzed 6,333 correlations to examine 276 relationships. Our results demonstrate that work design has a large impact on worker attitudes and behaviors, explaining on average 43% of the variance in these outcomes. Our results also suggest weaknesses in work design theory and empirical research, indicating areas in need of future research. Due to the importance and impact of work design, we hope that our meta-analytic review helps stimulate future research and reinvigorates the work design literature within the I/O psychology and management domains.