The Key Elements that Make not Just Good Jobs but Smart Jobs - Research Proposal Example

The Key Elements that make not just good jobs but smart jobs By Student’s Name Course Title Professor Date 1. Introduction Jobs in an organization are designed to contribute to the organization’s overall mission and goals. In many ways, the success of the organization depends on the strength of its workforce. An organization has to have all the important elements of providing a smart, productive workforce, which is important in fostering business growth. In a bid to creating the smart and productive workforce, organizations embark on ensuring that the jobs offered are not just good but smart. They design and structure jobs to ensure that they meet the organization objectives as well as the employees well being. Taking into consideration the current trend whereby the workforce is increasingly more educated and informed about the kind of working environments they want. It means that creating ‘good’ jobs is no longer enough; the jobs created have to be ‘smart’ to increase productivity. Inflexible jobs, which are structured in a rigid manner, have a bad effect and often lead to employees who are stressed out and with limited career growth. In contrast, smart jobs encourage employee learning, growth, and employability, thus acting as building blocks in a person career. Badly designed jobs cause a variety of performance problems in organizations. Good job design assists to avert such problems, improving productivity, and enhancing employee well-being. According to Hall and Las Heras (2010), jobs with a well-built developmental arrangement, those that facilitate creation of an adjustable career direction, those that establish possible novel selves and the ones that produces psychological career accomplishment as well as other favourable career results all lead to the development of adaptive self-identity and adaptive capabilities of the job employee. They utilize the phrase ‘smart jobs’ to refer to these career-developing arrangements because it encourages individuals to grow as they learn. In their research, Parker Williams, and Turner (2006) showed that jobs could be designed to encourage proactive and adaptive behaviours and promote workers to undertake a larger role. This research paper will attempt to find out the major elements that make not only ‘good jobs’ but also ‘smart jobs’ in an executive context. Hall and Las (2010) career-developing positions are used to evaluate whether Australian organizations use such factors to create smart jobs. Following this, the research will be based on five central research questions: Do jobs in Australian companies have a strong developmental context? Do jobs in Australian companies allow for adjustable career orientation? Do they establish possible better workforce and generate psychological career accomplishment and constructive career outcomes? Does the job environment contribute to the development of adaptive self-identity and adaptive capabilities of the job employee? Do they stimulate proactive and adaptive actions as well as hearten employees to undertake a larger role? This research paper will attempt to discover the way Australia companies create smart jobs for the employees to increase their productivity. A sample of professionals (N=250) will be used to test the companies they work for efforts to create smart jobs. The sample will consist of Masters and PHD students in University of New South Wales who work for different organizations in Australia. A questionnaire survey, which compares the efforts of different organizations in different industries in promoting smart jobs, will be used. The respondents will be offered a chance to describe the elements of a smart job in their own opinion and how their employers should promote smart jobs. Furthermore, results from this research will be analyzed and compared to previous research to determine the trends (if any) which have become apparent in the last few years or so with particular attention to the way Australian organizations efforts to create smart jobs compare to the efforts of companies outside Australia. 2. Literature Review Inherent to the idea of any new career is that an individual has the main responsibility of managing their career. Individuals have to undertake various deliberate actions to realize their career goals, however this mostly occur with the work environment. An organization has to create an environment for individuals to develop their career insights, which enable them to make important choices. Career planning is thus viewed as one of the most important dimensions of positive career behaviour that is particularly important for those joining new organizations. Hall and Las Heras (2010) argue that a ‘smart job’ encourages the individuals to grow as they learn. An organization workforce is usually the face of the organization to the public and all the other stakeholders. The organizations are built on services and products, which are all provided by people-the company employees (Bruce 2006). In enhancing organizational growth, there is need to invest as much time on employees issues as the time spent on operations and products. Today’s workers have higher expectations and they are also more willing to look for possible alternatives in case an organizations fails to offer a rewarding and stimulating work experience. As a result, there is need for companies to incorporate factors that enhance smart jobs. In designing ‘smart jobs’ to encourage career growth of employees, there is need to consider career-developing positions (Zhai, Medcof, & Jiao 2006). In working with the current workforce, companies need to realign their thinking to “What can the company do for the employees?” The results will have an important as well as lasting effect on the health and future of the organization. The organizations need to create opportunities for employees to learn and grow thus linking the goals of the goals with the goals of every individual in it. Almost all employees seek to learn and grow. 2.1 Employees Proactive Behaviour Parker et al. (2006) argued that behaviour reported by the agent adequately demonstrate person self-starting or proactivity, future oriented manners, which endeavours to result in change in a person self and the circumstances. Proactive behaviour in the workplace entails making things happen in the workplace. It involves anticipatory action and self-initiated behaviour aimed at altering oneself and the situation. Exemplars consist of taking charge in improving work manners, practical problem solving, utilizing personal inventiveness, making ideal as well as proactive feedback seeking. Since the current workforce is increasing more educated and informed about the kind of working environment they want, they are more proactive in the workplace. In today’s global economy, organizations are thus facing complex environments that require rapid responses to the changing external environments. To succeed in these increasing uncertain environments, work behaviour supports responsiveness to environmental challenges is called for (Griffin, Neal, & Parker 2007). Proactive behaviour, characterized as self-initiated endeavours to lead to change to oneself and situation (Parker et al. 2006), is among the desirable and important behaviours in the current business situation. The gains of proactive behaviour have been extensively demonstrated. Studies have demonstrated that persons who have a proactive personality have elevated career success as well as job performance. Various proactive actions, for instance, making voice, taking personal initiative, taking charge, building networks and championing innovations, are all aspects, which have been positively related to the performance of individuals rated by either employees or direct supervisors (Bledow & Frese 2009; Grant, Parker & Collins 2009; Thomson 2005). Although proactivity indicates various common aspects shared by every employee, such as changing orientation, self-initiative and future focus (Parker, Bindl & Strauss 2010), the purpose, and content of proactive actions being engaged in can be varied across employee groups. For example, researcher on newcomers laid emphasis on proactive socialization behaviour to address the way new employees settle in their new work environment (Morrison 2006). On the other hand, research on ordinary employees laid emphasis on proactive work behaviour to address the way workers master and change their work place to attain better performance (Parker et al. 2006). Employee proactivity, which is a self-initiated and future-focused action, brings about changes leading to numerous positive outcomes for both the employees and the organization. The employees are pressed with need to go beyond their set responsibilities and to bring about positive changes to their teams and organizations. 2.2 Employee Involvement in Decision-making In smart jobs, the employees also take part in the decision-making process. High performance work environments encourage employee participation in the decision making process as they understand that workers have a legitimate right to be drawn in decisions which, influence their working lives and also that positive benefits also ensue to business. The benefits include enhanced employee performance which result from enhanced motivation, a positive workplace culture which result from increased sharing of information and improvement in productivity when workers are consulted over changes to work practices and job design. Scott-Ladd, Travaglione, and Marshall (2006) argue that partaking in the formulation of decisions is evidently a motivator for commitment and job satisfaction, while task variety and work effort encourage participation. Modern organizations should thus involve employees in decision-making process to motivate them. This creates a smart working environment for the workers. Nonetheless, Scott-Ladd et al. (2006) argued that even though involvement in the decision-formulation optimistically affects work endeavour, independence, and dedication, practitioners should be keen to maintain steadiness amid the employer and the worker’s needs. The process of employee involvement offers employees the chance to take part and influence decision making on issues that affect their working lives. Direct participation in the decision making process by the employee such as briefing groups of the creation of new work organization arrangement is viewed as a strategy of enhancing their productivity and utterly to improve job satisfaction. Participation thus entails offering employees a voice in making decisions about their work, which in turn empowers them enabling them to set their own work goals. Simply being asked to take part in organizational decision-making may also improve the self-esteem and help to clear expectancies. The regulatory frameworks in Australia encourage employee decision-making and participation because participation benefits job satisfaction, work effort, and commitment (Scott-Ladd 2006). Rewards and task variety also promote employee participation in decision-making (Scott-Ladd 2006). In addition, more positive attitude to work efforts is connected with higher job participation and satisfaction in the decision making process. The effectively committed employees are also more inclined to job rewards, efforts, and satisfaction. 2.3 Job Design in Employee Motivation Research on job design had shown that job attributes influence imperative outcomes like employees’ attitudes and performance. Hall and Las Heras (2010) argue that there is need to redesign careers as well as jobs to ensure they are more satisfying, fruitful and learning inducing to their holders. Job design is a significant factor in motivating employees to be more productive. Job design influences job satisfaction, employee motivation, and commitment to the organization (Hall & Las Heras 2010). Job design thus has an important impact on organizational efficiency. Jobs are normally crafted in such a manner to encourage specialization. There is division of work into various tasks, with employees assigned for every task becoming very skilled, efficient, and accurate in undertaking it. Nonetheless, organizations often overlook the problem with specialization as it negatively influences employee motivation. Whereas the employees may become very skilled and efficient in completing repetitive tasks, there is usually a deficiency of variety, which causes boredom, as well as an overall feeling of detachment from the overall success and goals of the business (Chien-Cheng & Su-Fen 2009). A possible solution to this problem entails offering employees more variety in their work through job rotation; this lessens work monotony and builds a team with a wide range of skills. Employee motivation may also be enhanced through job enlargement where the workers are gradually offered with greater responsibility and work that is more challenging. Job enrichment also offers employees more control over the work that they undertake (Raza & Nawaz 2011). By offering them more responsibility and authority, it may encourage them to seek out more efficient and better ways of accomplishing their tasks, leading to increased productivity (De Vos, De Clippeleer, & Dewilde 2009. There are core job characteristics, which improve employee job motivation and satisfaction, potentially generating better outcomes for an organization. Jobs that are well designed increase employees’ job satisfaction and reduce boredom (Wrzensniewski, Justin & Dunton 2010). This improves productivity, morale as well as productivity of the business. In turn, this leads to absenteeism, less staff turnover and potentially makes an organization more profitable. Hall and La Heras (2010) propose that organizations should redesign work in such a manner that they become friendlier to employees, promote learning and satisfaction as they seek to reduce personnel costs. The organizations thus have to strive to match the job design to the employees’ preferences. With the current workforce, there is need for a person-job fit to make sure that the integration of career goals of employees and business goals of the organization is achieved (Ha & Las Heras 2010). This according to the authors can be achieved by changing the nature of the workplace. 2.4 Conclusion The above literature review shows that there are key features that constitute a smart job. As the workforce become more skilled and educated, there are extra factors that motivate them more and which they seek in a job. This implies that it is no longer enough to have good jobs; they have to be accommodating to the workers. Employee job satisfaction and motivation arises from their inclusion in decision-making and better job designs with a good fit. The current professionals do not stay in the same place for a long time and thus it is important to institute factors that constitute a smart work place that is establishing a workplace that better motivates them. This literature review serves as the basis in determining what constitutes a smart job for the research participants. 3. Research Methodology 3.1 Survey To examine whether Australian organizations create smart jobs for the employees to increase their productivity, an email survey will be conducted among a group of 250 employees who work for organizations in different industries. According to Bryman and Bell (2007), the main pro of embedding questionnaire is that it is simple for the research participant to send them to the researcher and entails less computer proficiency. Approval for carrying out the project will be received from the relevant authorities in the University to contact the Masters and PHD students undertaking different courses in the university. With the approval of the University administration, an email will be sent to every employee before the survey encouraging participation. The email will include information about the survey and well as a request of informed consent. Their participation will be voluntary. The respondents will be given a one-week period to decide whether they want to take part in the survey. Upon giving consent, the respondents will be sent the questionnaire through the email and given a one-week period to fill the eight survey questions as well as the accompanying demographic information. 3.2 Focus Group Discussions The other research method used in collecting data will be focus group discussion. The focus group refers to an interview style intended for a small group of people usually from four and eight persons who jointly discuss the topic selected by the researcher (Burgess & Bedford 2001). The researcher will hold the discussion with 30 employees within the reach of the researcher. The groups will be divided into five groups of six employees. The employees will be given adequate time and chance to express themselves regarding the issue of their organizational effort to establish smart jobs. This method will be useful for an in-depth exploration of the employees’ priorities, views, concerns, and problems in their work place (Grix 2004). 3.3 Instrument A well-detailed questionnaire will be used for assessing the initiatives that organizations employ to create smart jobs to motivate and sustain employees. The web survey will be appropriate in this case, as it will allow the researcher to obtain a large amount of data/information from a diversified sample. It will also be cost effective, as the researchers will obtain a large amount of information without hiring many interviewers, without paying for paper as well as postage. In addition, the survey will enable data to be collected and downloaded into the statistical software without added data entry work. Sending the questionnaire as an email attachment will also offer an immediate and easy means of response for the research participants. The results will be delivered in anonymous and aggregate form and data will remain private, however it will only be shared with the hired assistants for the research. 3.4 Reliability of the Instrument The reliability of the instrument will be tested using a pilot study. According to Babbie (2012), reliability is an issue of whether a particular method applied repeatedly to the same object, generates the same results every time. The web questionnaire will be created and first pilot tested with 20 similar employees before it is used in this study. The pilot instrument will be designed to evaluate the organization level of smartness using the data obtained from the employees. The questions will be developed the constructs by Hall and Las Heras (2010) in mind. The first section of the questionnaire will consist of questions on demographic information. The rest of the question will test the organization development context, opportunities for career adjustments and possibility of introduction of new selves. The questionnaires will also test how the employees job environment contribute to the development of adaptive self-identity and adaptive capabilities and how it stimulate proactive and adaptive behaviours as well as hearten workers to undertake a larger role. Once the pilot survey is developed, the face validity will be addressed through interviewing five senior managers in different organizations. They will be chosen based on their positions and the level of work experience. The input from these individuals will reinforce the selection of the items for the survey. The pilot study will enable testing of questionnaire. 4. Data Analysis The dominant research method will be quantitative and the researcher will attempt to employ some descriptive statistics to analyze the data, generated from the questionnaires. The data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and it will focus on tabular and graphical analysis. The results will be presented in form of graphs, pie charts, bar charts, and histograms. The SPSS program will also be used for analysis in summarization of data numerically using measures of variability and central tendency. 1. Research Schedule Week Activity Week 1 Develop Research Proposal Topic approval by professor Design Questionnaires Week 2 Literature Review Week 3 Seeking approval to contact the Masters and PHD students and sending them request to take part in the study Week 4 Conducting a pilot study using the designed questionnaire Conducting interviews with the five managers Week 5 Sending questionnaires to the employees Week 6 Data entry and analysis Week 7 Writing the research project Draft Review by Supervisor Week 8 Finalize research project Proof reading Formatting & Referencing Week 9 Submit research report 2. Research Budget The following is a cost estimate of the budget, which will be required to complete the research study Description Cost Cost of travelling to conduct focussed group discussion and other travelling expenses for the researcher and the assistants £200 Photocopying/Printing of research articles & other research material £200 Hiring 4 Research Assistances £400 Refreshments for the participants of the focussed group discussions £500 Telephone Charges £100 Total Charges £1300 Reference List Babbie, E 2012, The Practice of Social Research, Belmont CA, Wadsworth. Bledow, R. & Frese, M 2009, ‘A situational judgment test of personal initiative and its relationship to performance, Personnel Psychology, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 229-258. Bedford, T & Burgess, J 2001, ‘The focus-group experience’ In: Qualitative Methodologies/or Geographers, Oxford University Press Inc Berg, B.L 2001, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Boston, Allyn, and Bacon Bruce, A 2006, How to Motivate Every Employee: 24 Proven Tactics to Spark Productivity in the Workplace, McGraw Hill, New York Bryman, A & Bell, E 2007, Business Research Methods, Oxford University Press, UK De Vos, A., De Clippeleer, I & Dewilde, T 2009, ‘Proactive Career Behaviors and Career Success during the early career,’ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 761-777 Grant, A., Parker, S & Collins, C 2009, ‘Getting credit for proactive behavior: supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel’, Personnel Psychology, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 31-55. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A & Parker, S. K 2007, ‘A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts,’ Academy of Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 327 – 347 Grix, J 2004, The Foundations of Research, Palgrave Study Guides. Hall D.T & Las Heras, M 2010, ‘Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs,’ Journal of Organizational Behaviour, vol. 31, pp. 448-462. Morrison, E. W 2006, ‘Doing the job well: An investigation of pro-social rule breaking’ Journal of Management, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5-28. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K & Strauss, K 2010, ‘Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation,’ Journal of Management, vol. 36, pp. 827-856 Parker, S.K. Williema, H & Turner, N 2006, ‘Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 91, pp. 636-52 Raza, M & Nawaz, M 2011, ‘Impact of Job Enrichment on Employees’ Job Satisfaction, motivation, and organizational commitment: Evidence from the public sector of Pakistan,’ European Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 220-226 Scott-Ladd, B, Travaglione, A & Marshall, V 2006, ‘Causal inferences between participation in decision making task attributes, work effort, rewards, job satisfaction and commitment,’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 399 – 414. Chein-Cheng, C & Su-Fen 2009, ‘The Mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior,’ The Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 149, no. 4, pp. 474-494. Thompson, J. A 2005, ‘Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 5, pp.1011-1017. Wrzensniewski, A., Justin, M & Dunton, J 2010, ‘Turn the Job you have into the job you want, Harvard Business Review,’ vol. 88, no. 6, pp.114-117. Zhai, K., Medcof, J & Jiao, C 2006. Teamwork Goal Orientation as a new concept of goal orientation conceptualization, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings Paper. Read More