Editing Work design (section)

== Theoretical perspectives ==

===Job characteristics model===
{{see also|Job characteristic theory}}
[[File:Call Centre.jpg|thumb|[[Call centre]] work is often characterised by restricted working conditions such as low autonomy, low task variety, and short task cycles.<ref name=":18">{{Cite journal|last1=Wegge|first1=Jürgen|last2=Van Dick|first2=Rolf|last3=Fisher|first3=Gary K.|last4=Wecking|first4=Christiane|last5=Moltzen|first5=Kai|date=March 2006|title=Work motivation, organisational identification, and well-being in call centre work|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678370600655553|journal=Work & Stress|volume=20|issue=1|pages=60–83|doi=10.1080/02678370600655553|s2cid=144408378|issn=0267-8373}}</ref> Consequently, [[Turnover (employment)|turnover]] rates in call centres tend to be very high.<ref name=":18" />]]
Hackman & Oldham's (1976)<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Hackman|first1=J.Richard|last2=Oldham|first2=Greg R.|date=August 1976|title=Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance|volume=16|issue=2|pages=250–279|doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7|s2cid=8618462 |issn=0030-5073}}</ref> ''job characteristics model'' is generally considered to be the dominant motivational theory of work design.<ref name=":4" />  The model identifies five core job characteristics that affect five work-related [[Outcome (probability)|outcomes]] (i.e. [[motivation]], [[Contentment|satisfaction]], [[performance]], and [[absenteeism]] and [[Turnover (employment)|turnover]]) through three psychological states (i.e. experienced meaningfulness, experienced responsibility, and knowledge of results):<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hackman|first=J.Richard|author2=Oldham, Greg R.|date=August 1976|title=Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Performance|volume=16|issue=2|pages=250–279|doi=10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7|s2cid=8618462 }}</ref>

# '''Skill variety''' – The degree to which a job involves a variety of activities,  requiring the worker to develop a variety of skills and talents. Workers are more likely to have a more positive experience in jobs that require several different skills and abilities than when the jobs are elementary and routine.
# '''Task identity''' – The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work with a clear outcome. Workers are more likely have a more positive experience in a job when they are involved in the entire process rather than just being responsible for a part of the work.
# '''Task significance''' – The degree to which a job has a substantial impact on the lives or work of others. Workers are more likely have a more positive experience in a job that substantially improves either psychological or physical [[well-being]] of others than a job that has limited effect on anyone else.
# '''Autonomy''' – The degree to which the job provides the employee with significant freedom, independence, and discretion to plan out the work and determine the procedures in the job. For jobs with a high level of autonomy, the outcomes of the work depend on the workers' own efforts, [[Popular initiative|initiative]]s, and decisions; rather than on the instructions from a manager or a manual of job procedures. In such cases, the jobholders experience greater personal responsibility for their own successes and failures at work.
# '''Feedback''' – The degree to which a job incumbent has [[knowledge of results]]. When workers receive clear, actionable information about their work performance, they have better overall knowledge of the effect of their work activities, and what specific actions they need to take (if any) to improve their productivity.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hackman|first1=J. Richard|last2=Oldham|first2=Greg R.|date=1975|title=Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076546|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=60|issue=2|pages=159–170|doi=10.1037/h0076546|issn=0021-9010}}</ref>
The central proposition of job characteristics theory - that is, that work characteristics affect attitudinal outcomes - is well established by meta analysis.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Humphrey|first1=Stephen E.|last2=Nahrgang|first2=Jennifer D.|last3=Morgeson|first3=Frederick P.|date=2007|title=Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=92|issue=5|pages=1332–1356|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332|pmid=17845089|issn=1939-1854}}</ref> However, some have criticized the use of job incumbents' perceptions to assess job characteristics, arguing that individuals' perceptions are constructions arising from social influences, such as the attitudes of their peers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Daniels|first=Kevin|date=March 2006|title=Rethinking job characteristics in work stress research|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726706064171|journal=Human Relations|volume=59|issue=3|pages=267–290|doi=10.1177/0018726706064171|s2cid=145626625|issn=0018-7267}}</ref>

Job characteristics theory has been described as the logical conclusion of efforts to understand how work can satisfy basic human needs.<ref name=":6" /> The development of the job characteristics model was largely stimulated by [[Frederick Herzberg|Frederick Herzberg's]] [[Two-factor theory|two factor theory]] (also known as ''motivator-hygiene theory'').<ref name=":6" /> Although Herzberg's theory was largely discredited,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Locke|first1=E. A.|last2=Henne|first2=D.|date=1986|title=Work motivation theories|journal=International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology|volume=1|pages=1–35}}</ref> the idea that intrinsic job factors impact motivation sparked an interest in the ways in which jobs could be enriched which culminated in the job characteristics model.<ref name=":6" />

=== Sociotechnical systems ===
{{see also|Sociotechnical systems}}
[[File:Buurtzorg paraphernalia, Blijham (2020) 03.jpg|thumb|A well-known example of a sociotechnical systems approach to work design is [[Buurtzorg Nederland]]. Buurtzorg relies on self-managed teams of nurses to take responsibility for a given neighbourhood of patients, and is internationally recognised for its highly satisfied workforce.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gray|first1=Bradford H. Gray|last2=Sarnak|first2=Dana O. Sarnak|last3=Burgers|first3=Jako S. Burgers|date=2015-05-29|title=Home Care by Self-Governing Nursing Teams: The Netherlands' Buurtzorg Model|location=New York, NY United States|doi=10.15868/socialsector.25117|doi-access=free}}</ref>]]
''Sociotechnical systems'' is an [[Organization development|organizational development]] approach which proposes that the technical and social aspects of work should be jointly optimized when designing work.<ref name=":4" /> This contrasts with traditional methods that prioritize the technical component and then 'fit' people into it, often resulting in mediocre performance at a high social cost.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Appelbaum|first=Steven H.|date=August 1997|title=Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749710173823|journal=Management Decision|volume=35|issue=6|pages=452–463|doi=10.1108/00251749710173823|issn=0025-1747}}</ref> Application of sociotechnical theory has typically focused on group rather than individual work design, and is responsible for the rise of [[autonomous work group]]s, which are still popular today.<ref name=":4" />

One of the key principles of sociotechnical system design is that overall productivity is directly related to the system's accurate analysis of the social and technical needs.<ref name=":4" /> Accurate analysis of these needs typically results in the following work characteristics:<ref>{{Citation|last=Cherns|first=Albert|title=Principles of Socio-Technical Design|work=The Social Engagement of Social Science, Volume 2|year=1993|place=Philadelphia|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|doi=10.9783/9781512819052-019|isbn=978-1-5128-1905-2|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":5" />

* '''Minimal critical specification of rules''' – Work design should be precise about what has to be done, but not how to do it. The use of rules, policies and procedures should be kept to a minimum.
* '''Variance control''' – Deviations from the ideal process should be controlled at the point where they originate.
* '''Multiskills''' – A work system will be more flexible and adaptive if each member of the system is skilled in more than one function.
* '''Boundary location''' – Interdependent roles should fall within the same departmental boundaries, usually drawn on the basis of technology, territory, and/or time.
* '''Information flow''' – Information systems should provide information at the point of problem solving rather than being based on hierarchical channels.
* '''Support congruence''' – The social system should reinforce behaviours which are intended by the work group structure.
* '''Design and human values''' – The design should achieve superior results by providing a high quality of work life for individuals.

=== Job demands-control model ===
{{See also|Occupational health psychology}}
Karasek's (1979) ''job demands-control model'' is the earliest and most cited model relating work design to [[occupational stress]]. The key assumption of this model is that low levels of work-related decision latitude (i.e. [[Job control (workplace)|job control]]) combined with high workloads (i.e. job demands) can lead to poorer physical and mental health.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karasek|first=Robert A.|date=June 1979|title=Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392498|journal=Administrative Science Quarterly|volume=24|issue=2|pages=285–308|doi=10.2307/2392498|jstor=2392498|issn=0001-8392}}</ref> For example, high pressure and demands at work may lead to a range of negative outcomes such as [[psychological stress]], [[Occupational burnout|burnout]], and compromised physical health.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Crawford|first1=Eean R.|last2=LePine|first2=Jeffery A.|last3=Rich|first3=Bruce Louis|date=2010|title=Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019364|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=95|issue=5|pages=834–848|doi=10.1037/a0019364|pmid=20836586|s2cid=31680075 |issn=1939-1854}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last1=Schaufeli|first1=Wilmar B.|title=A Critical Review of the Job Demands-Resources Model: Implications for Improving Work and Health|date=2013-08-22|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4|work=Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health|pages=43–68|place=Dordrecht|publisher=Springer Netherlands|isbn=978-94-007-5639-7|access-date=2021-05-04|last2=Taris|first2=Toon W.|doi=10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4|hdl=1874/420626 }}</ref> Additionally, the model suggests that high levels of job control can buffer or reduce the adverse health effects of high job demands. Instead, this high decision latitude can lead to feelings of mastery and confidence, which in turn aid the individual in coping with further job demands.<ref name="Robert. 2010">{{Cite book|last=Robert.|first=Karasek|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/731152609|title=Healthy work : stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life|date=2010|publisher=Basic Books|isbn=978-0-465-02896-2|oclc=731152609}}</ref>

The job demands-control model is widely regarded as a classic work design theory, spurring large amounts of research.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Parker|first=Sharon K.|date=2014-01-03|title=Beyond Motivation: Job and Work Design for Development, Health, Ambidexterity, and More|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208|journal=Annual Review of Psychology|volume=65|issue=1|pages=661–691|doi=10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208|pmid=24016276|hdl=20.500.11937/69541 |issn=0066-4308|hdl-access=free}}</ref> However, the model has been criticized for its focus on a narrow set of work characteristics. Additionally, while strong support has been found for the negative effects of high job demands, some researchers have argued that the buffering effect of high job control on the negative effects of demand is less convincing.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=de Lange|first1=Annet H.|last2=Taris|first2=Toon W.|last3=Kompier|first3=Michiel A. J.|last4=Houtman|first4=Irene L. D.|last5=Bongers|first5=Paulien M.|date=2003|title="The very best of the millennium": Longitudinal research and the demand-control-(support) model.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282|journal=Journal of Occupational Health Psychology|volume=8|issue=4|pages=282–305|doi=10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.282|pmid=14570524|issn=1939-1307}}</ref>

==== Job demands-resources model ====
[[File:Danish police arrest.jpg|thumb|[[Police|Policing]] is widely recognised as a stressful, emotionally trying, and dangerous occupation. This may be because the job demands of police officers (e.g., [[role conflict]], role ambiguity, role overload) outweigh the job resources available (e.g., input into decision making, organizational support).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Frank|first1=James|last2=Lambert|first2=Eric G.|last3=Qureshi|first3=Hanif|date=2017-08-31|title=Examining Police Officer Work Stress Using the Job Demands–Resources Model|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043986217724248|journal=Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice|volume=33|issue=4|pages=348–367|doi=10.1177/1043986217724248|s2cid=148794902|issn=1043-9862}}</ref>]]
The ''[[job demands-resources model]]'' was introduced as a theoretical extension to the job demands-control model, and recognizes that other features of work in addition to control and support might serve as resources to counter job demands.<ref name=":3" /> The authors of the job demands-resources model argued that previous models of employee well-being "have been restricted to a given and limited set of predictor variables that may not be relevant for all job positions" (p.&nbsp;309).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bakker|first1=Arnold B.|last2=Demerouti|first2=Evangelia|date=2007-04-03|title=The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art|url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02683940710733115/full/html|journal=Journal of Managerial Psychology|language=en|volume=22|issue=3|pages=309–328|doi=10.1108/02683940710733115|s2cid=1221398 |issn=0268-3946}}</ref> Examples of the resources identified in this model include career opportunities, participation in decision making, and social support.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Demerouti|first1=Evangelia|last2=Bakker|first2=Arnold B.|date=2011-05-23|title=The Job Demands–Resources model: Challenges for future research|journal=SA Journal of Industrial Psychology|volume=37|issue=2|doi=10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974|issn=2071-0763|doi-access=free}}</ref>

=== Relational job design theory ===
''Relational job design theory'' is a popular contemporary approach to work design developed by American organizational psychologist [[Adam Grant]], which builds on the foundations laid by Hackman & Oldham's (1976)<ref name=":1" /> job characteristics model. The core thesis of relational work design is that the work context shapes workers' motivations to care about making a [[Prosocial behavior|prosocial difference]] (i.e. the desire to help or benefit others).<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Grant|first=Adam M.|date=April 2007|title=Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=32|issue=2|pages=393–417|doi=10.5465/amr.2007.24351328|issn=0363-7425}}</ref> Rather than focusing on the characteristics of tasks which make up jobs, relational work design is concerned with the 'relational architecture' of the workplace that influences workers' interpersonal relationships and connections with beneficiaries of the work.<ref name=":12">{{Cite journal|last1=van der Voet|first1=Joris|last2=Steijn|first2=Bram|date=2019-07-23|title=Relational Job Characteristics and Prosocial Motivation: A Longitudinal Study of Youth Care Professionals|journal=Review of Public Personnel Administration|volume=41|issue=1|pages=57–77|doi=10.1177/0734371x19862852|issn=0734-371X|doi-access=free}}</ref> In this context, beneficiaries refer to the people whom the worker believes are affected by his or her work. An employer can design the relational architecture of the workplace as a means of motivating workers to care about making a prosocial difference.<ref name=":12" />

Grant's theory makes a distinction between two key components of relational architecture:

* '''Impact on beneficiaries''' – This refers to the perception that one's work has a positive impact on the lives and well-being of others. A visible, positive impact of the job provides employees with a feeling that their tasks matter, which in turn results in higher prosocial motivation.<ref name=":13">{{Cite journal|last1=Grant|first1=Adam M.|last2=Parker|first2=Sharon K.|date=January 2009|title=7 Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of Relational and Proactive Perspectives|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/19416520903047327|journal=Academy of Management Annals|volume=3|issue=1|pages=317–375|doi=10.5465/19416520903047327|issn=1941-6520}}</ref>
* '''Contact with beneficiaries''' – This refers to opportunities for employees to communicate and interact with the people who benefit from their work. Increased interaction with clients will result in employees will become more emotionally engaged "as a result of first-hand exposure to their actions affecting a living, breathing human being" (p.&nbsp;307).<ref name=":2" /> Thus, increasing job contact results in higher prosocial motivation.<ref name=":13" />

=== Learning and development approach ===
The ''learning and development approach'' to work design, advanced by Australian organizational behavior Professor [[Sharon K. Parker]], draws on the findings of a diverse body of research which shows that certain job characteristics (e.g. high demands and control,<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Karasek|first1=R.|title=.Healthy Work Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life|last2=Theorell|first2=T.|publisher=New York Basic Books|year=1990}}</ref> autonomy,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Wall|first1=Toby D.|last2=Jackson|first2=Paul R.|last3=Davids|first3=Keith|date=1992|title=Operator work design and robotics system performance: A serendipitous field study.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.353|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=77|issue=3|pages=353–362|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.353|issn=0021-9010}}</ref> complex work with low supervision<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kohn|first1=Melvin L.|last2=Schooler|first2=Carmi|date=May 1982|title=Job Conditions and Personality: A Longitudinal Assessment of Their Reciprocal Effects|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/227593|journal=American Journal of Sociology|volume=87|issue=6|pages=1257–1286|doi=10.1086/227593|s2cid=145585085|issn=0002-9602}}</ref>) can promote learning and development in workers.<ref name=":4" /> Parker argues that work design can not only shape cognitive, identity, and moral processes, but also speed up an individual's learning and development.<ref name=":4" />

===  Economic theory ===
In economics, job design has been studied in the field of [[contract theory]]. In particular, [[Bengt Holmström|Holmström]] and Milgrom (1991) have developed the multi-task [[moral hazard]] model.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Holmstrom|first1=Bengt|last2=Milgrom|first2=Paul|date=1991|title=Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design|journal=Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization|volume=7|pages=24–52|citeseerx=10.1.1.715.3715|doi=10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24|jstor=764957}}</ref> Some of the tasks are easier to measure than other tasks, so one can study which tasks should be bundled together.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Itoh|first=Hideshi|date=1994|title=Job design, delegation and cooperation: A principal-agent analysis|url=https://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/37916/1/21.pdf|journal=European Economic Review|volume=38|issue=3–4|pages=691–700|doi=10.1016/0014-2921(94)90104-x|issn=0014-2921|hdl=2433/37916|hdl-access=free}}</ref> While the original model was focused on the incentives versus insurance trade-off when agents are risk-averse, subsequent work has also studied the case of risk-neutral agents who are protected by limited liability. In this framework, researchers have studied whether tasks that are in direct conflict with each other (for instance, selling products that are imperfect substitutes) should be delegated to the same agent or to different agents.<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Bolton|first1=P.|title=Contract theory|last2=Dewatripont|first2=M.|publisher=MIT Press|year=2005|pages=223}}</ref> The optimal task assignment depends on whether the tasks are to be performed simultaneously or sequentially.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schmitz|first=Patrick W.|date=2013|title=Job design with conflicting tasks reconsidered|journal=European Economic Review|volume=57|pages=108–117|doi=10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.11.001|issn=0014-2921|doi-access=free}}</ref>