The Effects of Job Enrichment on Employee Satisfaction,Motivation,Involvement,and Performance: A Field Experiment

Abstract

The effect of job enrichment on employee responses was investigated in a field experiment conducted in a federal agency among clerical employees, who were randomly assigned to either an enriched or unenriched condition. In the enriched condition, a systematic attempt was made to increase the extent to which the jobs of the employees possessed each of the dimensions of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. In the unenriched condition, the employees performed their original duties and tasks. After a 6-month experimental period, the effect of enrichment was examined. The results showed that: (1) Employees in the enriched condition perceived their jobs as more enriched than before; (2) enrichment caused significant increases in employee job satisfaction, job involvement, and internal motivation; (3) enrichment led to significant decreases in absenteeism and turnover; but (4) enrichment had little impact on performance, whether assessed by superiors' ratings or by actual output. These findings, which are described in terms of the Hackman-Oldham theory of job design, are regarded as suggestive evidence that enrichment can cause substantial improvements in employee attitudes, but that these benefits may not lead to greater productivity. It is argued that in order to explain the effect of enrichment on performance, it is necessary to consider other factors besides the psychological states produced by jobs which are seen to have certain characteristics.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ARGYRIS, C. Personality and organization. New York: Harper , 1957.

ARGYRIS, C. Personality and organization theory revisited . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1973, 18, 141-167 .

ATKINSON, J. An introduction to motivation. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand , 1964.

BIRCHALL, D. , & WILD, R. Job restructuring among blue-collar workers . Personnel Review, 1973, 2, 40-55 .

BISHOP, R. C. , & HILL, J. W. Effects of job enlargement and job change on contiguous but non-manipulated jobs as a function of worker status . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 175-181 .

BRAYFIELD, A. R. , & CROCKETT, W. H. Employee attitudes and employee performance . Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 396-424 .

CAMPBELL, D. T. , & STANLEY, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand-McNally , 1973.

CAMPBELL, J. P. , DUNNETTE, M. D. , LAWLER, E. E. , & WEICK, K. Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1970.

DAVIS, L. E. Job design and productivity: A new approach . Personnel, 1957, 33, 418-430 .

10.

FORD, R. N. Motivation through the work itself. New York: American Management Association , 1969. (a)

11.

FORD, R. N. The obstinate employee . Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969, 33, 301-310 . (b)

12.

HACKMAN, J. R. , & LAWLER, E. E. Employee reactions to job characteristics . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286 .

13.

HACKMAN, J. R. , & OLDHAM, G. R. Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 159-170 .

14.

HACKMAN, J. R. , & OLDHAM, G. R. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory . Organizational Behaviour & Human Performance, 1977, 15, 250-279 .

15.

HERZBERG, F. , MAUSNER, B. , & SNYDERMAN F. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley , 1959.

16.

KORNHAUSER, A. The mental health of the industrial worker. New York: Wiley , 1965.

17.

LAWLER, E. E. Job design & employee motivation. In V. Vroom & E. Dea (Eds.), Management and motivation. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin , 1970.

18.

LAWLER, E. E. , & HALL, D. T. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction and intrinsic motivation . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 54, 305-312 .

19.

LOCKE, E. A. , SIROTA, D. , & WOLFSON, A. An experimental case study of the successes and failures of job enrichment in a government agency . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 701-711 .

20.

LODAHL, T. M. , & KEJNER, M. The definition and measurement of job involvement . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, 24-33 .

21.

MAHER, J. R. Enriching low-skill jobs. In J. R. Maher (Ed.), New perspectives in job enrichment. New York: Van Nostrand , 1971.

22.

OLDHAM, G. R. , HACKMAN, J. R. , & PEARCE, J. L. Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work . Journal ofApplied Psychology, 1976, 61, 395-403 .

23.

ORNE, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment; with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications . American Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776-783 .

24.

PAUL, W. J. , ROBERTSON, K. B. , & HERZBERG, F. Job enrichment pays off . Harvard Business Review, 1969, 47, 61-79 .

25.

ROSENBERG, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press , 1957.

26.

SMITH, P. C. , KENDALL, L. M. , & HULIN, C. L. The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally , 1969.

27.

TURNER, A. M. , & LAWRENCE, P. R. Industrialjobs and the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press , 1968.

28.

UMSTOT, D. D. , BELL, C. H. , & MITCHELL, T. R. Effects of job enrichment and task goals on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for job design . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 379-394 .

29.

VROOM, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley , 1964.

30.

WALKER, C. R. The problem of the repetitive job . Harvard Business Review, 1950, 28, 54-58 .

31.

WINER, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley , 1971.