On the Codingdemise of Job Enrichment. Technical Yale
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
e ,DOCUMENT RESUME -ED 109 350 ,'_GE 004 133 AUTHOR; j-7!4Hackman, J. Richard TITLE ---On the CodingDemise of Job Enrichment. Technical Report No. 9. INSTITUTION Yale Univ., New Haven; Conn: Dept. of Administrative - Sciences. SPONS AGENCY Manpower Administration (DOL), .Washington, D.C.; Office-of Naval Research, Washington, D.C. _Organizational EffeCtiveness Research Program. REPORT. NO bLHA-21-09-74-14-5 - PUB DATE Dec 74 NOTE , 33p. EDRS _PRICE ° MF-$0.76 HC-$1.95-PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Attitudes; Automation; Evaluation;-Failure_Factors; *Job Development; *Job Satisfaction; 'Motivation;. *Organizational Change; *Personnel Management; Productivity; Program Effectivenes; Success Factors ,' IDENTIFIERS *Job Enrichment ABSTRACT T Job` enrichment rapidly is becoming- one of the' most Widely used behavioral science strategies for organizational change. And there is scattered but compelling evidence that, undercertain conditions, the technique can lead simultaneously to both improved productivity and an increase in the quality of employee work experiences. Yet obsetvations of on-going lob enrichment projects in a number of organizaHons suggest that theapproach. is failing in practice at least as often as it is succeedint -and that its future as a strategy fOr personal and organizational change may bebleak. The report (1) explores a,, number of frequently-observed errors in .implemediing job enrichment that _can lead ,to "failures" of the technique, and (21 ideitifieg-a number of ingredients found to be common to most of the:nsuccessfuln-job enrichment projects that were observed. (Author) J. ***********,#*o******************************************************** . * Documents acquired by ERIC. include many-informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources: ERIC makes every'effort * * to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of,marginal- * * reproducibility are often ericOuntered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiahe and hardcopy reproductionsERIC makes available * * via the ERIC.Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not 30, responsible or the quality of the original document.Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can bemi'de.from the original. * *********t***44****************************************************$c*** I OR 2LI 1975 L.: ON THE COMING DEMISE OF JOB ENRICHMENT A J. Richard Hackman Yale University ,Technical Report No. 9 Department of Administrative Sciences Yale University December, 1974 Abstract ,Job enrichment rapidly is becoming one of the most widely used behavioral science strategies for organizational change. And there is scattered but compelling evidence that, under.eertain conditions,_the techniqqetan lead simultaneously to'both improved productivity and to an increase in the quality of employee work experiences. Yet observations of on-going job enrichment projects in a, number of organizations sugest that the approach is failing in practice at least as often as it is succeeding--and that its future as a strategy for personal and organizational change -may be bleak. - This report (a) explores a number of frequently-observed errors in implement- ing_job enrichment that can leid to "failures" of the technique, and (b) identifies a number of ingredients found to be common to most of the successful" job enrichment projaCts that were observed. This report Oas prepared in connection with research supported by the Manpower Administration,U.S. Department of Labor, under research and development 'grant No. 21-0 },,:x,74 -14,x. by the 'Office of, Naval ResearCh (Organizational EffectiveneSs Rekearch Program: Contract NO0014-67A-0097-0026, NR 170-744). .,Since grantees:oOducting research and development under Government sponsor- ship are encouraged to express their own judgment freely, this report does not necessarilyjepresent the official opinion or policyof the Department of Labor. The grantee is solely responsible for the contents of this report. ralz. (`n U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, %, tr EDUCATIONS. WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION 0 THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO ' DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVEDFROM THE PERSON OR ORGANiZATIONORiGIN ATING IT PC/MIS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS 0 STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE , SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL. INSTi,TuTEOF r tli EDUCATION POSITION DR POLICY 2 .. s' BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA Report o 2. 3. Recipient's 4i,cesstun No. SliErT LD1271(AN21-09'-71.1.'44-5! , ,....- '4..I the and :NultItit: . 5. Report Date . .December, 1974. On the .Coming Demise. of Job.Enrichment 6. , . 17. Authot(0.- J... 8. Performing Organtzation Rept. J.qchardi Hackman No. 9. Petlutining thganization Name and.Address . # 10. PtojectiTa,k/Wotk Unit No. Department of Administratie Sciences 56. TiillIpuseAvenue, 11.ContractiGrant No. Yale um.versity . New Haven, Ct. 06520 DL 21-09-71h,47. '12. Sprinsorin.: Or;any'ation Name and Address 13: Type of Report & Period . U.S. Department of Labor . Coveted , , M anpoyer Administration . ).c entific Office ofTesearch and Development 4 14., . 601 D Street. N.W., Wal-hin7.ton. D.C. 20213 . 15. Supplementary Notes . , . L , . , 16. Abstracts ( Job enrichment rapidly is becomingone of the most widely used behavioral science strategies for organizational change. And'there is scatterbd but . compelling evidence that, under certain conditions, the technique can lead . simultaneously to bothCimproved productivity andto an increase in the quality of employee work experiences. Yet observations of on-going job enrichment projects in a number of organizations suggest thatthe approach is'failing in $ practice at least as.often as it is succeeding--andthat itq future as a strategy for personal and organizational changemay be bleak. This report (a) explores a number of frequently-observederrors in implementing job enrichment . that can lead to "failures" of the technique; and (b)identifies a number.of ingredients found to be common to most of the ''successful''job enrichment projects that- were observed. 17. Key lAufl, .1fPiDocum..nt An II% sic.17o. Descriptors . Attitudes Upgradtng . utomation t F,ffectIveness , , Evaluatirr. , Job Analysts , Job De scrtrt ion \ . , Job Satisfaction, . , Motivatton . , Performanbe . Personnel manarement , 17b.[dent if grsc6WiggritlYallteLs , . -1, . .1 . f -, 17c.' COSA TIlf kid/Group SA \ . 18. M ailability tati.n.knt Distribution in unlimited. 19. .Si.kurity (' lass (l'his 21. No. of Pages . Report 1 ' 32 Available from, National Technical Information i \( 1.s.41,11:n . Service, Springfield:, Va. 22151. -21).Setority t lass (Ibis 22. rie Pare , - I'NCI ,N111rn illIS.FORM MAY RI:PROM/CEP J ON TIWCOMING DEMISE OF JOB ENRICHMENT1 J. Richard Hackman Yale Upiversitim In the years since the groundbreakingHawthorne Studies, increasing numbers of behavioral science "solutions"to organizational problems have been proposed. Typically a newly-cdnceived solution is first tried out- -with great success inone,ortwo organizations. It then is picked up,by the management,Aurnalsand, the pdpular 'press, and spreads wildfire-like-across the country. And then, after a few years, it fades,away as disillusioned managers and employees concludesometimes reluctantly, sometimes that the "solution" Was not all it had been cracked up to be._ It looks as if work redesign (or job enrichment, or job enlargement--call it what you will) is to beythe darling of the early 1970a. It began in this country with the pioneering research of Charles Walker and Robert Guest (1952), Frederick Herzberg and his associates (Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman, 1959; Herzberg, 1966; Paul, Robertson & Herzberg, 1969), Louis Davis (1957; 1966), # and a few others. Successful tests were conducted in a few forward-looking organizations-, prominently including the studies at.AT&T shepherded'ty Robert Ford and his associates (Ford, 1969).Now change programs focussing on work redesign are flooding the On "how we profited from job enrichment" are appearing in managemeijotirnaIs, and the labor community is struggling to determine how it shOuld respond to the tidal wave that seems to be forming. The question of the moment 'is whether the redesign of work:will evolve into a robust and powerful strategy for organizational change --or Whether it, like so many of its behavioral science predecessors,.will fade into disuse 4 ' ): as practitioners experience failure and disillusionment in its application. The answer-is by no means clear. In this paper, I reportsome observations and impressiops.about work redesign as a strategy for individual and organizational change--with .- --- particular emphasison\hctorswhich determine whether it will succeed or fail in a.given ipstance. These Observations are based on experiences my . associates a d_ I have had it fifteen to twent)Narganizations over the last two years. We have been developing and refining.a,n,l.nstroment for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of jib redesign projects (Hackman & Oldham, in press). In the process, we have visited numerous organizations where job redesign activities were being planned, implemented, or gotten over. We have talked with workers, managers, and internal and outside consultants. In several cases, we have used our-instruMent to make quanti,- tative evaluations of organizational change projectsinvolving the redesign of work: In interpreting our observations andconclusions,.it is important to unddrstand that we have not researched the "superstar" projects. Not a single one of our tests has been conducted at a brand new'plant, designed, staffed, and 'managed in accord with the