A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Professional Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
J.
RICHARD HACKMAN
Work
Redesign
and
Motivation
The
redesign
of
jobs
and
work
systems
is
frequently
carried
out to
increase
organizational
productivity
and/or
to
improve
the
quality
of
the
work
experiences
of
organization
members.
Four
theoretical
approaches
to
work
redesign
are
reviewed
and
compared,
and the
kinds
of
personal
and
work
outcomes
that
can
reasonably
be
expected
from
restructuring
jobs
are
discussed.
A
number
of
unanswered
questions
about
the
strategy
and
tactics
of
redesigning
jobs
are set
forth,
and
some
problems
in
installing
work
redesign
programs
in
existing
organizations
are
outlined.
The
term work redesign refers here
to
activities that
involve
the
alteration
of
specific
jobs
(or
systems
of
jobs) with
the
intent
of
improving both productivity
and the
quality
of
employee work experiences. Although there
are no
generally accepted criteria
for
what
is a
well-designed job, there
are
some commonalities
in
work redesign projects.
Typically,
job
specifications
are
changed
to
provide employees with additional
re-
sponsibility
for
planning, setting
up, and
checking their
own
work;
for
making decisions
about work methods
and
procedures;
for
establishing their
own
work pace;
and for
dealing directly with
the
clients
who
receive
the
results
of the
work.
In
many cases,
jobs
that
previously
had
been simplified
and
segmented into many small
parts
in the
interest
of
production
efficiency
are
reassembled
and
made into larger
and
more
meaningful wholes.
Sometimes work
is
redesigned
to
create motivating
and
satisfying
jobs
for
individual
employees
who
work more
or
less
on
their
own.
Such
activities
are
usually known
as
"job enrichment" (Herzberg,
1974).1
Alternatively, work
may be
designed
as a
group
task,
in
which
case
a
team
of
workers
is
given
autonomous
responsibility
for
a
large
and
meaningful
module
of
work. Such teams
typically
have
the
authority
to
manage their
own
social
and
performance processes
as
they
see
fit; they receive feedback
(and
often
rewards)
as a
group;
and
they
may
even
be
charged with
the
selection,
training,
and
termination
of
their
own
members.
These
teams
are
variously known
as
"autonomous work groups" (Gulowsen, 1972), "self-regulating work
groups"
(Cummings,
1978),
or
"self-managing work
groups"
(Hackman,
1978).
A
well-
known
and
well-documented example
of the
design
of
work
for
teams
is the
Topeka
pet
food
plant
of
General Foods. (See Walton,
1972,
for a
description
of the
innovation
and
Walton,
1977,
for a
6-year history
of the
Topeka
teams.)
Both
individual
and
team work redesign
can be
viewed
as
responses
and
alternatives
to the
principles
for
designing work that derive
from
classical organization theory
and
the
discipline
of
industrial engineering.
These
principles
specify
that rationality
and
efficiency
in
organizational
operations
can be
obtained
through
the
simplification,
standardization,
and
specialization
of
jobs
in
organizations.
These
principles
are
based
on the
assumption
that
most employees,
if
managed
well, will work efficiently
and
effectively
on
such jobs. Research over
the
last several decades
has
documented
a
1
Job
redesign,
job
enlargement,
and job
enrichment
are
closely related terms
and
will
not be
distinguished
here.
Readers
who
wish
to
sort
out the
connotations
of the
various terms used
to
characterize work redesign
are
referred
to
Strauss (1974,
pp.
38-43).
Vol.
11,
No. 3
June
1980
PROFESSIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
445
Copyright 1980
by
the
American Psychological
Association,
Inc.
0033-0175/80/1103-0445S00.75
