The Key Elements That Make up Not Just Good Jobs but Smart Jobs - Coursework Example

The Key Elements that make up not just ‘Good Jobs’ but ‘Smart Jobs’ Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Table of contents Selection and explanation of exemplar articles 5 Article 1 5 Research question 5 The theoretical framework 5 Research design 5 Results of the research 6 Justification as an exemplar 7 Suggestions for improving the exemplary article 7 Article 2 7 Research question 7 To gather data for this article, Tolsby (2001) conducted an exploratory investigation into the effects of IT systems that had been implemented in 130 local level army units in Norway. The researcher sought opinions regarding the efficiency or lack thereof of the IT systems, and the perceptions that its users had. Using interpretive analysis, Tolsby (2001) found out that the IT systems were less efficient than originally intended and the main reason for such results was the lack of involvement of the-would-be system users during the IT design phase 8 The theoretical framework 8 Results of the research 9 Justification as an exemplar 9 Suggestions for improvement 10 Article 3 10 Research question 10 Research design 10 Theoretical framework 10 Strengths and weaknesses 11 Results of the research 11 Justification for selection as an exemplar 12 Suggestions for improvement 12 Conclusion 12 Identifying exemplar articles From a total of 23 articles, the articles by Hall and Heras (2010, pp. 448-462), Tolsby (2000, pp. 482-492), and Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, pp. 179-201) were chosen as exemplar articles for their comprehensive use of research methods, their convincing analysis, their clear communication to the reader, and their contribution to the subject of smart jobs as opposed to just good jobs. Notably, the term ‘smart jobs’ was only expressly mentioned in Hall and Heras (2001), authors who stipulated the aspects that would constitute smart jobs. Due to the comprehensive nature of Hall and Heras (2010), their article was used as the core article, whose description of what constituted smart jobs was used to analyse other articles, thus leading to the selection of Tolsby (2000, pp. 482-492), and Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001, pp. 179-201) as the two other exemplar articles. According to Hall and Heras (2010, p. 455), “Smart jobs stimulate the individual to learn and grow” by having: a strong developmental network; an adjustable career orientation; and an adaptive environment where employees can grow their self and job capabilities. Finding exemplar articles is a process that requires keenness and a degree of research knowledge. Before perusing through hundreds of journal articles in an effort to pick the relevant ones, the researcher first needed to identify the topic for use in the exercise. After topic identification, the right research tactics such as keyword combinations when conducting electronic searches were important. A search of “smart jobs” on Google Scholar for instance did not turn up relevant results, and as such, the researcher had to result to using elements of smart jobs in the searches. In the end, the researcher identified 23 articles which were relevant to the topic. Selection and explanation of exemplar articles Article 1 Research question In their discussion section, Hall and Hellas (2010, p. 450) specifically ask how “career theory and research contribute to job design” The theoretical framework As a reader, it is easy to resonate with the approach the article takes because it appears there are too may theoretical findings about organisational theory, but it would appear that most such findings are not applied in real organisational environments hence meaning that most organisations and the human resource therein are not benefitting from the wealth of knowledge created through research. Research design Although the article is not based on any primary research, its reliance on other articles, which had laid the foundation for the ‘smart jobs’ topic shows that the authors based their work on sound understanding of the dynamics that surround job design and the impact of job design on employees’ performances. An illustration of the author’s research is evident in their use of data published in the 1960s just as theories of organisational behaviour started emerging. The researchers’ use of secondary data rather than primary data was perhaps informed by the possibilities that there is too much fragmented data and findings related to careers, jobs, and the workplace, which if put together, would generate invaluable insight for use in job designs. Strengths and weaknesses This article’s main strength is evident in its inclusivity, especially since it has drawn its arguments from multiple sources. From the wide array of literature, the writers were able to comprehensively address issues such as ‘subject success as an outcome’, ‘longer-term career outcomes’, ‘incorporating time in research design’, ‘inclusion of relational factors as antecedents’, ‘cross cultural research on careers’, and ‘work-life research’ among others (Hall & Heras 2010, pp. 450-453). Among the admirable characters of this article is that instead of being proactive, it takes a relaxed approach into the subject, and instead of collecting fresh primary data, it relies on existing findings to form an informed opinion on how future work should be designed in order to qualify as smart jobs. Notably, its major weakness is drawn from the possibility that relying too much on secondary data meant that the article ‘absorbed’ the weaknesses and short-comings of the sources it relied upon. Results of the research The article concludes by stating that organisations need to design smart jobs for purposes of retaining the workforce, and getting the most out of the employees. Justification as an exemplar The first article chosen as an exemplar was ‘Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs’. The express relevance to the topic identified by the researcher aside, this article was picked due to its objective, which it identified as generating “new ideas for redesigning jobs and careers and to make them at once more productive, more fulfilling, and more learning-induced to the holder” (Hall & Heras 2010, p. 448). Other articles that share a similar view with Hall and Heras (2010) include Higgins and Kram (2001, pp. 264-288). Among the authors who address the need for individuals to find fulfilment, satisfaction, and a sense of belonging in their jobs include: Baumister and Leary (1995, pp. 497-529); Griffin (1991, pp. 425-435); Wrzesniewski (2002, pp. 230-234); and Griffin, Parker, and Neal (2008, pp. 48-51). Suggestions for improving the exemplary article A clearer prose format would have made the article easier to read. Article 2 Research question The researcher sought opinions regarding the efficiency or lack thereof of the IT systems, and the perceptions that its users had. Research design To gather data for this article, Tolsby (2001) conducted an exploratory investigation into the effects of IT systems that had been implemented in 130 local level army units in Norway. The researcher sought opinions regarding the efficiency or lack thereof of the IT systems, and the perceptions that its users had. Using interpretive analysis, Tolsby (2001) found out that the IT systems were less efficient than originally intended and the main reason for such results was the lack of involvement of the-would-be system users during the IT design phase The theoretical framework The article’s analysis is further supported by Tolsby’s use of existing literature, especially in the discussion and conclusion sections – something that enabled the author to corroborate the findings in the primary research with existing data hence validating his findings. The main strength of this article is arguably that it is easy to follow narrative that gives the reader a complete mental picture of the research processes that the author was engaged in. It is for this reason that one quickly grasps the intention and meaning of the article, but is also able to quickly notice that the writer did not make any recommendations. Strengths and weaknesses Although the article has a weakness in that it fails to make any recommendations, its strengths easily outweigh the weakness, especially since the narrative already informs the reader about the possibility of IT systems having negative consequences on the job design. Therefore, although the article does not expressly state that organisations need to consider the effects IT systems (or other interventions in the workplace) may have in the work place, a reader readily knows that that is the inference that the article sought to make. Results of the research The results of the research indicate that Taylorism (i.e. the assumption that employees cannot act independently without supervision) in the Norwegian army was re-introduced by the IT-systems, even though the management did not use the systems. Of significance to management literature however was the research’s indication that the reduced employee freedoms and choices led to an increase in flexibility and job engagement. The article creates the impression that lack of engagement between the management and the lower-level military IT-users was to blame for the inefficiencies observed in the system. Engagement between employees and the management has been a widely debated subject. Some of the literature sources that support Tolsby’s (2001) views include De Menez (2012, pp. 308-328); Mayfield and Mayfield (2012, pp. 11-15); Douglas (1999, pp. 621-628); Hermann, Loser and Jahnke (2007, pp. 450-464); Higgins and Kram (2001, pp. 264-288) and Pennell (2010, pp. 279-290) among others. Justification as an exemplar The second article ‘Taylorism given a hand: how an IT system changed employees’ flexibility and personal involvement in their work’ was chosen as an exemplar article because of not only its relevance to the subject topic, but also because of its combined methods of qualitative and quantitative research, and its detailed analysis. Suggestions for improvement The authors would have included a recommendations section in order to clearly state their opinions regarding employees and managements involvement in job design. Article 3 Research question Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s (2001) work is based on a proposition the “employees craft their jobs by changing cognitive, task, and/or relational boundaries to shape interactions with others at work” (p. 179). Research design The methodology taken by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) is similar to Hall and Heras (2010), and seems especially acceptable in job design-related research because of its ability to consider different aspects that affect job design, and which would be challenging to establish in totality using a primary research method. Through secondary data, the writers are able to prove that their model has empirical support, something that would have cost them time, money and significantly more effort if they had decided to use primary data-acquiring methods. Theoretical framework Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) model the individual motivation of workers, the job’s opportunities, and the likely effect of job design on individual employees and the organisations as the main factors that affect how well a person performs in a specific job. Among the authors who have addressed the aspects that affect job performance include Scott-Ladd, Travaglione and Marshall (2006, pp. 399-414); Pillay (2008, pp. 254-268); Jobs and Butler (2006, pp. 66-676); Boon, Arumugam and Hwa (2005, pp. 279-289); Goris (2007, pp. 737-752); Jackson (2004, pp. 714-730); Greasley et al. (2005, pp. 358-368); Ankli and Paliam (2012, pp. 7-10); and Larsen (2004, pp. 860-869) among others. Strengths and weaknesses Overall, this article’s main strength is that it bases its findings that employees play a vital role in crafting/designing work environments on existing findings, and just like the first article (i.e. Hall & Heras 2010), its findings are based on diverse research conducted through a review of existing literature. The article’s main weakness however, is related to the fact that the authors do not acknowledge the role that employers play in providing the environment or the incentives necessary to craft/design jobs. In reality, employees cannot be completely independent of their employers, since the former always have a larger stake, more responsibility and higher risks at and in the organisation. Results of the research The third article by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) found out that more employee involvement in crafting their jobs would improve productivity and efficiency. In other words, this article confirms that the employer’s perception of what a good job is does not necessarily fit into the employee’s perception of the same. As such, the authors recommend that employees should be afforded more discretion in designing their own jobs. The researchers identify “meaning of work” and “work identity” as two factors that determine an employee’s job-fit and satisfaction (Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001, p. 180). Justification for selection as an exemplar Unlike the first and the third exemplar articles used in this report, most of the articles cited here were found to handle just a fraction of the aspects that were considered vital in designing smart jobs. For example, although Larsen (2004) admits that there is a dependency between individuals and the organisations they work for, the author states that organisations need be attractive towards employees; however, the article does not state just how the organisations are supposed to create that attraction. Ankli and Palliam (2012) on the other hand concentrate on motivating the workforce, but fail to tie work motivation to the whole subject of job design. Suggestions for improvement The article would have been more balanced if the authors had acknowledged the respective roles that employees and the management play in job design Conclusion Despite their weaknesses, the three exemplar articles were found to have comprehensive details to the subject topic compared to 20 other articles that had been identified in relation to the same. In addition to valid research methods that appeared to be well fitted to address the topic comprehensively without spending too much time, energy or resources on the same, two articles provide the reader with diverse perspectives about the subject topic, while the remaining article seemingly attains a compromise. Specifically, article 1 portrays the role of job design as belonging to the management, while article 3 portrays the same role as being an employees’ prerogative. Article 2 on the other hand seems to bridge the different views of article 1 and 2 and indicates that designing ‘smart’ jobs requires the input of both employees and the management. Apart from article 2, which relied on combined research methods, articles 1 and 3 relied on the extensive wealth available in management and organisational fields. By so doing, the articles avoided ‘re-inventing the wheel’ and instead chose to combine the existing but fragmented research findings to advise organisations on how best to craft/design jobs that provide employees with environments that encourage flexibility, learning, self-awareness, adaptability, and development avenues among other things that would increase their satisfaction in the job hence increasing their loyalty and relative performances. On its part, article 2 proved that even new technological interventions cannot mediate between job-design and job-fit, hence necessitating the need for management and employees to work together in the job-design phase, and for the latter (as the implementers) to own the job design. Appendix 1: References Ankli, A E & Palliam, R 2012, Enabling a motivated workforce: Exploring the sources of motivation, Development and Learning in Organizations, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 7–10. Baumister, R & Leary, M R 1995, The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 497-529. Boon, O K, Arumugam, V & Hwa, T S 2005, Does soft TQM predict employees’ attitudes?, The TQM Magazine, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 279 – 289. Douglas, C 1999, Organization redesign: The current state and projected trends, Management Decision, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 621 – 628. Goris, J R 2007, Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between individual-job congruence and job performance/satisfaction, Journal of Management Development, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 737 – 752. Greasley, K, Bryman, A, Dainty, A, Price, A, Soetanto, R & King, N 2005, Employee perceptions of empowerment, Employee Relations, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 354 – 368. Griffin, M A, Parker, S K & Neal, A 2008, Is behavioural engagement a distinct and useful construct? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 48-51. Griffin, R 1991, Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviours: a long term investigation, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 425-435. Hall, D T & Heras, M L 2010, Reintegrating job design and career theory: Creating not just good jobs but smart jobs, Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 31, pp. 448-462. Higgins, M C & Kram, K E 2001, Reconceptualising mentoring at work: A developmental network perspective, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, no. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 264-288. Jackson, P R 2004, Employee commitment to quality: Its conceptualisation and measurement, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 714 – 730. Jobs, C & Butler, D 2006, ‘A case study in the globalization of jobs in Ireland’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 666-676. Pennell, K 2010, The role of flexible job descriptions in succession management, Library Management, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 279 – 290. Larsen,H. H 2004, Global career as dual dependency between the organization and the individual, Journal of Management Development, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 860 – 869. Mayfield, M & Mayfield, J 2012, Logoleadership: Breathing life into loyalty and putting meaning back into work, Development and Learning in Organizations, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 11 – 15, Pillay, R 2008, Work satisfaction of medical doctors in the South African private health sector, Journal of Health Organization and Management, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 254 – 268. 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 – 41. Herrmann, T, Loser, K & Jahnke, I 2007, Sociotechnical walkthrough: A means for knowledge integration, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 Iss: 5 pp. 450 – 464. Tolsby, J 2000, Taylorism given a helping hand: How an IT system changed employees flexibility and personal involvement in their work, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 482 – 49. Wrzesniewski, A 2002, “It’s not just a job”: Shifting meaning of work in the wake of 9/11, Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 230-234. Read More