|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#19
|
Diagnosing Groups and Jobs-1
|
|
|
|
Diagnosing Groups and Jobs
Figure 25: Comprehensive Model for Diagnosing Organizational
Systems
Individual-Level Diagnosis:
The lowest level of organizational diagnosis is the individual
job or position. An organization consists of
numerous groups; a group, in turn, is composed of several
individual jobs. This section discusses the
inputs, design components, and relational fits for diagnosing
jobs. The model shown in Figure 25(C) is
similar to other popular job diagnostic frameworks, such as
Hackrnan and Oldhamn’s job diagnostic survey
and Herzberg’s job enrichment model.
Inputs:
Three major inputs affect job design: organization design, group
design, and the personal characteristics of
job holders.
Organization design is concerned with the larger organization
within which the individual job is the
smallest unit. Organization design is a key part of the larger
context surrounding jobs. Technology,
structure, measurement systems, human resources systems, and
culture can have a powerful impact on the
way jobs are designed and on people’s experiences in jobs. For
example, company reward systems can
orient employees to particular job behaviors and influence
whether people see job performance as fairly
rewarded. In general, technology characterized by relatively
uncertain tasks and low interdependency is
likely to support job designs allowing employees flexibility and
discretion in performing tasks. Conversely,
low-uncertainty work systems are likely to promote standardized
job designs requiring routinized task
behaviors.
Group design concerns the larger group or department containing
the individual job. Like organization
design, group design is an essential part of the job context.
Group task structure, goal clarity, composition,
performance norms, and group functioning serve as inputs to job
design. They typically have a more
immediate impact on jobs than do the larger, organization-design
components. For example, group task
structure can determine how individual jobs are grouped together
— as in groups requiring coordination
among jobs or in ones comprising collections of independent
jobs. Group composition can influence the
kinds of people who are available to fill jobs. Group
performance norms can affect the kinds of job designs
that are considered acceptable, including the level of job
holders’ performances. Goal clarity helps members
to prioritize work, and group functioning can affect how
powerfully the group influences job behaviors.
When members maintain close relationships and the group is
cohesive, group norms are more likely to be
enforced and followed.
Personal characteristics of individuals occupying jobs include
their age, education, experience, and skills and
abilities. All of these can affect job performance as well as
how people react to job designs. Individual
needs and expectations can also affect employee job responses.
For example, individual differences in
growth need — the need for self-direction, learning, and
personal accomplishment — can determine how
much people are motivated and satisfied by jobs with high levels
of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback
about results. Similarly, work motivation can be influenced by
people’s expectations that they can perform
a job well and that good job performance will result in valued
outcomes.
Design Components:
Figure 25(C) shows that individual jobs have five key
dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy, and feedback about results.
Skill variety identifies the degree to which a job requires a
range of activities and abilities to perform the
work. Assembly-line jobs, for example, generally have limited
skill variety because employees perform a
small number of repetitive activities. Most professional jobs,
on the other hand, include a great deal of skill
variety because people engage in diverse activities and employ
several different skills in performing their
work.
Task identity measures the degree to which a job requires the
completion of a relatively whole, identifiable
piece of work. Skilled craftspeople, such as tool-and-die makers
and carpenters, generally have jobs with
high levels of task identity. They are able to see a job through
from beginning to end. Assembly-line jobs
involve only a limited piece of work and score low on task
identity.
Task significance identifies the degree to which a job has a
significant impact on other people’s lives.
Custodial jobs in a hospital are likely to have more task
significance than similar jobs in a toy factory
because hospital custodians are likely to see their jobs as
affecting someone else’s health and welfare.
Autonomy indicates the degree to which a job provides freedom
and discretion in scheduling the work and
determining work methods. Assembly-line jobs generally have
little autonomy: the work pace is scheduled,
and people perform programmed tasks. College teaching positions
have more autonomy: professors usually
can determine how a course is taught, even though they may have
limited say over class scheduling.
Feedback about results involves the degree to which a job
provides employees with direct and clear
information about the effectiveness of task performance.
Assembly-line jobs often provide high levels of
feedback about results, whereas college professors must often
contend with indirect and ambiguous
feedback about how they are performing in the classroom.
Those five job dimensions can be combined into an overall
measure of job enrichment. Enriched jobs have
high levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance,
autonomy, and feedback about results. They
provide opportunities for self direction, learning, and personal
accomplishment at work. Many people find
enriched jobs internally motivating and satisfying.
Fits:
The diagnostic model in Figure 25(C) suggests that job design
must fit job inputs to produce effective job
outputs, such as high quality and quantity of individual
performance, low absenteeism, and high job
satisfaction. Research reveals the following fits between job
inputs and job design:
1. Job design should be congruent with the larger organization
and group designs within which the
job is embedded. Both the organization and the group serve as a
powerful context for individual jobs or
positions. They tend to support and reinforce particular job
designs. Highly differentiated and
integrated organizations and groups that permit members to
self-regulate their behavior fit enriched jobs.
These larger organizations and groups promote autonomy,
flexibility, and innovation at the individual
job level. Conversely, bureaucratic organizations and groups
relying on external controls are congruent with
job designs scoring low on the five key dimensions. Both
organizations and groups reinforce standardized,
routine jobs. As suggested earlier, congruence across different
levels of organization design promotes
integration of the organization, group, and job levels. Whenever
the levels do not fit each other, conflict is
likely to emerge.
2. Job design should fit the personal characteristics of the
jobholders if they are to perform
effectively and derive satisfaction from work. Generally,
enriched jobs fit people with
strong growth needs. These people derive satisfaction and
accomplishment from performing
jobs involving skill variety, autonomy, and feedback about
results. Enriched jobs also fit
people possessing moderate to high levels of task-relevant
skills, abilities, and knowledge.
Enriched jobs generally require complex information processing
and decision making;
people must have comparable skills and abilities to perform
effectively. Jobs scoring low on the
five job dimensions generally fit people with rudimentary skills
and abilities and with low growth
needs. Simpler, more routinized jobs requiring limited skills
and experience fit better with people
who place a low value on opportunities for self- direction and
learning. In addition, because
people can grow through education, training, and experience, job
design must he monitored and
adjusted from time to time.
|
|
|
|
|