Abstract
A recent note by Ferris and Gilmore (1985) on the use of alternative Motivating Potential Score formulae has led us to undertake this replication of their work. Four versions of the formula were tested in a large heterogeneous sample of 1193 male blue-collar employees. Over-all job satisfaction and satisfaction with work itself were the dependent variables. A measure, unique to this paper, of Growth Need Strength was used as a moderator. The best formula was the simple additive one: it correlated quite well with both over-all satisfaction and satisfaction with work itself. A version in which skill variety and autonomy were heavily weighted correlated highly with satisfaction with work itself; a version in which skill variety and task identity and task significance together received equal weight with autonomy and feedback correlated best with over-all satisfaction. Little support was found, using hierarchical multiple regression analysis, for the original multiplicative formulation suggested in 1976 by Hackman and Oldham. Each of the additive formulae showed small, but statistically significant interactions with growth needs; the multiplicative composite showed no such interactions.