Editing Work design (section)

== Antecedents of work design behaviours ==
Decisions about the organization of work are typically made by those in positions of formal authority, such as executives, managers, and team leaders.<ref name=":14">{{Cite journal|last1=Parker|first1=Sharon K.|last2=Van den Broeck|first2=Anja|last3=Holman|first3=David|date=January 2017|title=Work Design Influences: A Synthesis of Multilevel Factors that Affect the Design of Jobs|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0054|journal=Academy of Management Annals|volume=11|issue=1|pages=267–308|doi=10.5465/annals.2014.0054|issn=1941-6520}}</ref> These decisions, which usually regard the division of labor and the integration of effort, create work designs in which employees have assigned tasks and responsibilities.<ref name=":14" /> In addition to work design arising from formal decision-making, work design can also be created through emergent, informal, and social processes (e.g. role expectations from peers).<ref name=":14" /> Usually, these types of processes arise from the actions and decisions of employees, meaning employees have a certain degree of agency in shaping their own work designs.<ref name=":14" />

=== Motivation, knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) ===
In accordance with the ability-motivation-opportunity model of behaviour,<ref>{{Cite book|date=2000-06-01|title=Manufacturing advantage: why high performance work systems pay off}}</ref> the work design-related decisions of individuals are shaped by their ''[[motivation]]'' and ''[[Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities|knowledge, skills, and abilities]]''. These proximal processes apply to decision making in both people in formal positions of authority (i.e. managers) as well as individual employees.<ref name=":14" /> With respect to motivation, managers' decisions could be shaped by autonomous motivation (e.g. the desire the retain employees) or controlled motivation (e.g. reducing staffing costs). In terms of KSAs, managers' knowledge about work design options and their skills to engage employees in the decision making process may shape their decisions.<ref name=":14" /> It is believed that these same processes apply to employees' work design-related actions and decisions.<ref name=":14" />

=== Opportunity ===
''Opportunity'', in this context, refers to the uncontrollable forces surrounding an individual that enable or constrain the individuals task performance.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Blumberg|first1=Melvin|last2=Pringle|first2=Charles D.|date=October 1982|title=The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257222|journal=The Academy of Management Review|volume=7|issue=4|pages=560|doi=10.2307/257222|jstor=257222|issn=0363-7425}}</ref> Regardless of an individual's motivation or KSAs regarding a particular work design-related decision, that individual can only implement change if they have the opportunity to do so.<ref name=":14" /> For example, if a manager lacks the power to mobilise necessary resources, perhaps due to a rigid organizational hierarchy, their work design-related actions would be constrained.<ref name=":14" />

=== Individual influences ===

* '''Demographics''' – Characteristics such as age, gender, and ethnicity can shape work design decisions.<ref name=":14" /> The more these attributes signal assumptions that the employee is competent and trustworthy, the more managers will be motivated to make role adjustments to improve work design.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Clegg|first1=Chris|last2=Spencer|first2=Caroline|date=June 2007|title=A circular and dynamic model of the process of job design|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317906x113211|journal=Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology|volume=80|issue=2|pages=321–339|doi=10.1348/096317906x113211|issn=0963-1798}}</ref> Additionally, there is evidence that demographic characteristics can affect the work design decision of employees.<ref name=":14" /> For example, older workers may be discouraged to renegotiate their work designs due to discriminatory attitudes in the workplace.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hornung|first1=Severin|last2=Rousseau|first2=Denise M.|last3=Glaser|first3=Jürgen|date=2008|title=Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic deals.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.655|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=93|issue=3|pages=655–664|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.655|pmid=18457493|issn=1939-1854}}</ref> Gender and ethnicity can make some workers more vulnerable to low-quality work designs, with data showing that female workers have less autonomy, fewer development opportunities, and reduced career possibilities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Crespo|first1=Nuno|last2=Simoes|first2=Nadia|last3=Pinto|first3=José Castro|date=2017|title=Determinant factors of job quality in Europe|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.15611/aoe.2017.1.01|journal=Argumenta Oeconomica|volume=1|issue=38|pages=15–40|doi=10.15611/aoe.2017.1.01|hdl=10071/14218|issn=1233-5835|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Evidence also suggests that migrant workers often have less enriched work designs compared to non-migrant workers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ortega|first1=Adriana|last2=Carneiro|first2=Isabella Gomes|last3=Flyvholm|first3=Mari-Ann|date=2009-05-16|title=A Descriptive Study on Immigrant Workers in the Elderly Care Sector|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10903-009-9257-4|journal=Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health|volume=12|issue=5|pages=699–706|doi=10.1007/s10903-009-9257-4|pmid=19449102|s2cid=21649299|issn=1557-1912}}</ref>
* '''Competence and learning''' – Karasek and Theorell<ref name="Robert. 2010"/> propose that enriched work designs create a self-perpetuating spiral by which the promotion of learning builds employees' mastery and competence, which in turn enables employees to take on more challenging tasks and responsibilities, generating further learning.<ref name=":14" />
* '''Other individual differences''' – [[Personality]] traits and stable individual differences such as motivation and initiative can affect both managerial and individual work design-related decision making. For example, personality traits may affect who managers select for particular jobs<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hough|first1=Leaetta M.|last2=Oswald|first2=Frederick L.|date=February 2000|title=Personnel Selection: Looking Toward the Future--Remembering the Past|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.631|journal=Annual Review of Psychology|volume=51|issue=1|pages=631–664|doi=10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.631|pmid=10751983|issn=0066-4308}}</ref> as well as an employee's choice of occupation.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=McKay|first1=Derek A.|last2=Tokar|first2=David M.|date=October 2012|title=The HEXACO and five-factor models of personality in relation to RIASEC vocational interests|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.006|journal=Journal of Vocational Behavior|volume=81|issue=2|pages=138–149|doi=10.1016/j.jvb.2012.05.006|issn=0001-8791}}</ref>

=== Contextual influences ===

* '''International''' – Organizations operate today under the influence of [[globalization]] and [[Free trade|market liberalization]].<ref name=":14" /> While there is little empirical work on the direct effects of these factors, some have argued that globalization has increased the perceived threat of competition and job insecurity, leading to increased expectations about working harder.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Idris|first1=Mohd Awang|last2=Dollard|first2=Maureen F.|last3=Winefield|first3=Anthony H.|date=November 2011|title=The Effect of Globalization on Employee Psychological Health and Job Satisfaction in Malaysian Workplaces|journal=Journal of Occupational Health|volume=53|issue=6|pages=447–454|doi=10.1539/joh.11-0035-fs|pmid=21952295|issn=1341-9145|doi-access=free}}</ref> Additionally, increased access to new suppliers in other countries, especially developing countries, has increased the potential for organizations to influence work design in these countries.<ref name=":14" /> Evidence has shown that cost pressures on suppliers are linked to poor work designs, such as high workloads and physical demands.<ref>{{Citation|title=Evolution of Supply Chain Management|date=2015-08-27|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/e-escm-120048060|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of Supply Chain Management|pages=393–395|publisher=CRC Press|doi=10.1081/e-escm-120048060|isbn=978-1-4398-6152-3|access-date=2021-05-11}}</ref>
* '''National''' – Organizations are subject to the economic, cultural, and institutional context of the country they operate in.<ref name=":14" /> Work designs in economies with a relatively high GDP and low employment typically have lower workloads and higher job resources (e.g. autonomy, skill variety, challenge) due to higher investment in practices aimed at attracting and retaining employees.<ref name=":14" /> Additionally, some have argued that national culture shapes individual preferences for particular working conditions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Erez|first=Miriam|date=2010-01-22|title=Culture and job design|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.651|journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior|volume=31|issue=2–3|pages=389–400|doi=10.1002/job.651|issn=0894-3796}}</ref> For example, managers and employees from cultures with a preference for structure and formal rules might prefer work designs which are clearly defined.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cagliano|first1=Raffaella|last2=Caniato|first2=Federico|last3=Golini|first3=Ruggero|last4=Longoni|first4=Annachiara|last5=Micelotta|first5=Evelyn|date=2011-02-22|title=The impact of country culture on the adoption of new forms of work organization|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443571111111937|journal=International Journal of Operations & Production Management|volume=31|issue=3|pages=297–323|doi=10.1108/01443571111111937|hdl=11311/579511|issn=0144-3577|hdl-access=free}}</ref> Finally, national institutions such as [[trade union]]s, national employment policies, and training systems policies may have direct or indirect effects on work design.<ref name=":14" />
* '''Occupational''' – Occupations shape the distribution of tasks as well as the influence of skills used in completing those tasks, both of which are key to work design.<ref name=":14" /> Additionally, occupations tend to encourage and reinforce particular values, which may or may not be congruent with the values of individual workers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Morgeson|first1=Frederick P.|last2=Dierdorff|first2=Erich C.|last3=Hmurovic|first3=Jillian L.|date=2010-01-22|title=Work design in situ : Understanding the role of occupational and organizational context|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.642|journal=Journal of Organizational Behavior|volume=31|issue=2–3|pages=351–360|doi=10.1002/job.642|issn=0894-3796}}</ref> For example, occupations which value independence (e.g. police detectives) are likely to reward actions which demonstrate initiative and creativity, giving rise to job characteristics such as autonomy and variety.<ref name=":14" />
* '''Organizational''' – According to strategic human resource management theory (SHRM), a key task for managers is to adopt HR practices which are internally consistent with the strategic objectives of the organization.<ref name=":14" /> For example, if an organization's strategy is to gain competitive advantage by minimizing costs, managers may be motivated to adopt work designs based on [[scientific management]] (i.e. low training and induction costs to allow low-skill and low-paid workers to be employed).<ref name="1947- 2004">{{Cite book|author=Porter, Michael E.|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/76881628|title=Competitive advantage : creating and sustaining superior performance|date=2004|publisher=Free Press|isbn=0-7432-6087-2|oclc=76881628}}</ref> In contrast, managers working for an organization that aims to gain competitive advantage through quality and innovation may be motivated to provide employees with opportunities to use specialist knowledge and skills, resulting in enriched work designs.<ref name="1947- 2004"/>
* '''Work groups''' – Drawing on the [[Sociotechnical system|sociotechnical theory]] and [[team effectiveness]] literature, some authors argue that key characteristics of work groups (i.e. composition, interdependence, autonomy, and leadership) can influence the work design of individual team members, although it is acknowledged that evidence on this particular topic is limited.<ref name=":14" />