SUMMARY COURSE 3.6:
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY
BY ROWAN MOELIJKER
YEAR 2018/2019
POSITIVE & ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
ERASMUS SCHOOL OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
,PROBLEM 4: MAKING WORK BETTER
JOB DESIGN
CHAMPION, M.A., MUMFORD, T.V., MORGESON, F.P., & NAHRGANG, J.D. (2005). WORK
DESIGN: EIGHT OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 44(4),
367–390. DOI:10.1002/HRM.20080
Professor notes: This is essential reading in the area of job design. Campion is one of the big names in this field.
Campion has a bit of a tendency to extensively describe the topics that are involved in job design. It is important
to get a general idea of each of the major obstacles he describes. That is, the 8 obstacles/opportunities that are
described in the article can often be summarized by a set of core statements.
There are several clear relationships between characteristics of work and employee reactions that can guide
efforts to simultaneously maximize efficiency and satisfaction in the workplace. Several challenges, or
obstacles, remain, however, for practitioners attempting to implement work-design changes.
The purpose of this article is to improve understanding of these eight obstacles and to provide direction for
managing them.
Obstacle #1: Work Design Influences Multiple Outcomes
The interdisciplinary job-design perspective of Campion suggests that there are at least four basic approaches
to work design, each focused on a distinct set of outcomes. These four approaches are labelled mechanistic,
motivational, perceptual, and biological. Practitioners need to consider all four approaches when redesigning
work.
Each of these approaches tends to be studied within a single discipline and focuses primarily on the benefits for
solving one particular problem. When practitioners conduct work redesign within one or only some of these
approaches and ignore others, the costs are typically unrecognized. This omission may impede successful work-
design interventions.
Solution: In dealing with this obstacle, HR managers and researchers should consider several key issues. First,
practitioners must ask the question “Under what conditions are the costs more or less likely to occur?” to
determine which outcome variables are of greatest relevance to their situation. Second, attention should be
, paid to links between the appropriate job-design approach and the HR strategy of the organization. Third,
current research on strategic HR has distinguished between core jobs and noncore jobs, with core jobs being
more critical to the core competencies of the organization.
Obstacle #2:Trade-offs between Different Work-Design Approaches
Changes recommended from each discipline, aimed at improving its specific outcomes, tend to be
incompatible, or even in direct conflict with, changes recommended from another work-design model.
Researchers in this field have been unable to provide clear direction to practitioners wanting to maximize
multiple outcomes that span disciplinary boundaries, such as attaining both efficient and satisfying work.
The compromise approach involves a direct judgment about the outcomes that are chosen as the focus of the
work-redesign intervention. The desired outcomes then dictate the job-design model used.
The level-separation approach involves designing different levels of the organization using different models.
The sequential approach to reconciling conflicts may involve applying one model first, followed by the other.
The synthesis approach focuses on specifying areas in which gains can be made based on one model without
sacrificing the other models. It is sometimes possible to reap some of the benefits of one model without
incurring large costs in terms of another, if careful attention is paid to the specific changes made.
The team approach involves using team-based design to simultaneously reap efficiency, cost savings, and
motivational benefits.
Total quality management (TQM) is one strategy that attempts to combine elements of both the mechanistic
and motivational models of job design. The general focus of TQM is to continually improve processes and
product quality.
The principles of reengineering also reflect concepts from both the motivational and mechanistic models of job
design.
The socio-technical systems approach seeks to improve productivity and satisfaction by considering both
technological systems (mechanistic model) and human systems (motivational model) in designing work so that
the two can be jointly optimized. One of the primary contributions of this perspective is the use of autonomous
work teams to accomplish work.
Solutions: First, practitioners should consider adopting an interdisciplinary perspective on work design, a factor
also indicated in the first obstacle. Second, practitioners should specify the desired outcomes of the redesign
process. Finally, the principle of joint optimization from socio-technical systems theory suggests that the key to
minimizing trade-offs is balance in work design.
Obstacle #3: Difficulty in Choosing an Appropriate Unit of Analysis
Unfortunately, no guidelines exist for determining the proper unit of analysis for a given situation. This lack of
guidance is an obstacle to creating unified theories of job design and to making practical changes to jobs.
Practitioners face this obstacle when redesigning jobs for specific purposes.
The authors propose four possible levels of analysis for practitioners to utilize when redesigning work. Jobs
represent the highest level of analysis and can be defined as a group of duties performed by a single individual.
The next level of analysis consists of duties, which are composed of multiple tasks that form a major portion of
the work performed. The lowest level of analysis is tasks, which are typically defined as discrete work activities.
Finally, the authors propose a fourth level of analysis, the task cluster, as an intermediary level between tasks
and duties.
Job level of analysis: if the job level of analysis were used in centralizing activities, it would not provide
information on how jobs could be combined to achieve efficiencies or on what particular aspects of a job lead
to the increased well-being of employees.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND
SAFETY
BY ROWAN MOELIJKER
YEAR 2018/2019
POSITIVE & ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
ERASMUS SCHOOL OF SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
,PROBLEM 4: MAKING WORK BETTER
JOB DESIGN
CHAMPION, M.A., MUMFORD, T.V., MORGESON, F.P., & NAHRGANG, J.D. (2005). WORK
DESIGN: EIGHT OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, 44(4),
367–390. DOI:10.1002/HRM.20080
Professor notes: This is essential reading in the area of job design. Campion is one of the big names in this field.
Campion has a bit of a tendency to extensively describe the topics that are involved in job design. It is important
to get a general idea of each of the major obstacles he describes. That is, the 8 obstacles/opportunities that are
described in the article can often be summarized by a set of core statements.
There are several clear relationships between characteristics of work and employee reactions that can guide
efforts to simultaneously maximize efficiency and satisfaction in the workplace. Several challenges, or
obstacles, remain, however, for practitioners attempting to implement work-design changes.
The purpose of this article is to improve understanding of these eight obstacles and to provide direction for
managing them.
Obstacle #1: Work Design Influences Multiple Outcomes
The interdisciplinary job-design perspective of Campion suggests that there are at least four basic approaches
to work design, each focused on a distinct set of outcomes. These four approaches are labelled mechanistic,
motivational, perceptual, and biological. Practitioners need to consider all four approaches when redesigning
work.
Each of these approaches tends to be studied within a single discipline and focuses primarily on the benefits for
solving one particular problem. When practitioners conduct work redesign within one or only some of these
approaches and ignore others, the costs are typically unrecognized. This omission may impede successful work-
design interventions.
Solution: In dealing with this obstacle, HR managers and researchers should consider several key issues. First,
practitioners must ask the question “Under what conditions are the costs more or less likely to occur?” to
determine which outcome variables are of greatest relevance to their situation. Second, attention should be
, paid to links between the appropriate job-design approach and the HR strategy of the organization. Third,
current research on strategic HR has distinguished between core jobs and noncore jobs, with core jobs being
more critical to the core competencies of the organization.
Obstacle #2:Trade-offs between Different Work-Design Approaches
Changes recommended from each discipline, aimed at improving its specific outcomes, tend to be
incompatible, or even in direct conflict with, changes recommended from another work-design model.
Researchers in this field have been unable to provide clear direction to practitioners wanting to maximize
multiple outcomes that span disciplinary boundaries, such as attaining both efficient and satisfying work.
The compromise approach involves a direct judgment about the outcomes that are chosen as the focus of the
work-redesign intervention. The desired outcomes then dictate the job-design model used.
The level-separation approach involves designing different levels of the organization using different models.
The sequential approach to reconciling conflicts may involve applying one model first, followed by the other.
The synthesis approach focuses on specifying areas in which gains can be made based on one model without
sacrificing the other models. It is sometimes possible to reap some of the benefits of one model without
incurring large costs in terms of another, if careful attention is paid to the specific changes made.
The team approach involves using team-based design to simultaneously reap efficiency, cost savings, and
motivational benefits.
Total quality management (TQM) is one strategy that attempts to combine elements of both the mechanistic
and motivational models of job design. The general focus of TQM is to continually improve processes and
product quality.
The principles of reengineering also reflect concepts from both the motivational and mechanistic models of job
design.
The socio-technical systems approach seeks to improve productivity and satisfaction by considering both
technological systems (mechanistic model) and human systems (motivational model) in designing work so that
the two can be jointly optimized. One of the primary contributions of this perspective is the use of autonomous
work teams to accomplish work.
Solutions: First, practitioners should consider adopting an interdisciplinary perspective on work design, a factor
also indicated in the first obstacle. Second, practitioners should specify the desired outcomes of the redesign
process. Finally, the principle of joint optimization from socio-technical systems theory suggests that the key to
minimizing trade-offs is balance in work design.
Obstacle #3: Difficulty in Choosing an Appropriate Unit of Analysis
Unfortunately, no guidelines exist for determining the proper unit of analysis for a given situation. This lack of
guidance is an obstacle to creating unified theories of job design and to making practical changes to jobs.
Practitioners face this obstacle when redesigning jobs for specific purposes.
The authors propose four possible levels of analysis for practitioners to utilize when redesigning work. Jobs
represent the highest level of analysis and can be defined as a group of duties performed by a single individual.
The next level of analysis consists of duties, which are composed of multiple tasks that form a major portion of
the work performed. The lowest level of analysis is tasks, which are typically defined as discrete work activities.
Finally, the authors propose a fourth level of analysis, the task cluster, as an intermediary level between tasks
and duties.
Job level of analysis: if the job level of analysis were used in centralizing activities, it would not provide
information on how jobs could be combined to achieve efficiencies or on what particular aspects of a job lead
to the increased well-being of employees.
