Job Satisfaction and Motivation - Literature review Example

Job Design Table of Contents Stance 3 Explained definitions used in the 3 Theories 3 Critique 5 Conclusion 7 Reference List 9 Stance Job Designis defined as the specifications of a particular job profile. The job designing is done on the basis of the methods, requirements and relationships of different aspects of jobs that satisfy organizational needs and social interests of the employer (Truss, 2013). It is focused on the transformation process that changes the resource inputs to organizational output. A proper job design is the key determinant of the efficiency of an organization. This paper is focused on the proposition that job design influences employee motivation and thereby increasing job satisfaction level. The study will be conducted based on several theories and observations collected from books and journals. Explained definitions used in the title The title suggests that the job satisfaction is directly proportional to the job design of an organization. The job design indicates that the roles and responsibilities are selectively allocated to individual candidates. The allocation of job profile plays a great role in the employee motivation (Byrne, 2005). As a result of the higher motivation level the employees are quite satisfied with their job. Job satisfaction level can be defined as an individual’s level of contentment with the activities he has been asked to perform by his employer. The higher the level of satisfaction the higher is the level of his productivity. There are several factors of a job role that is responsible for motivational level of an employee, which includes the working hours, duties performed, responsibilities overseen, performance targets, remuneration and reporting structure. Therefore the job design greatly influences the individual satisfaction level. Theories According to (Gibbs, Levenson and Zoghi (2010) job design is one of the fundamental pillars of the organizational structure. It involves the sets of tasks that are needed to be put in a same job profile and that will lead to achievement of organizational goals. According to Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennush (1997) allocating the right person for the right job is imperative to individual efficiency and effectiveness. The concept of “right person for the right job” suggests that in order to yield maximum productivity an organization must allocate job roles based on the suitability of the candidate. The allocation process is mostly decided on the individual level of skills and abilities. Every job role consists of a particular set of roles and responsibilities and in order to achieve them an individual must have a particular set of skills and abilities which are exclusive to the assigned job profile. Moreover, the job design also defines how the organization wants a particular job to be performed. This aspect of job design in vital in achieving employee satisfaction. An employee is only satisfied with his job when he finds that his skills, abilities and personal choices are aligned with his job roles. His ability to successfully implement his skills and abilities in the given job role leads to a sense of productivity. The employee feels that his skills are being effectively used towards achieving organizational goals. This as a result leads to job satisfaction. According to Mathis and Jackson (2003) the motivation level of an employee is directly proportional to rewards being given by his employer. Therefore the aspects of job design like promotion policies, salary increment, and incentive structures are imperative to employee motivation. Firms with no incentive structures have been found to be less productive that the firms with effective incentive structures. It has been observed that motivated employees show high levels of retention than demotivated employees. According to theories of employee engagement proposed by Kahn (1990), an individual voluntarily engages himself with a particular job role only when his motivational level is high. The job design also plays a vital role in creating employee engagement among the staffs. Aspects of job design like work hour allocation and responsibility allocation based on an individual’s personal level of comfort increases his level of engagement. Therefore, if an employee is given the job roles and responsibilities that complement his comfort level then he shows an emotional commitment towards his job role. This as a result allows an employee to voluntarily engage himself to hard working and devote towards organizational success. The motivation level of an employee is also dependent on his performance level. He is more motivated when he successfully meets all his targets and fulfills all of his responsibilities. This can be achieved by allocating the right candidate with the right set of skills and abilities to the suitable job roles. Thus, whenever the job role fits perfectly with an employee’s area of expertise and specialization he feels more comfortable with his job. This as a result allows the employees to yield higher productivity and efficiency. As a result of higher levels of individual productivity, the motivational level also increases, leading to higher job satisfaction. Even though job design may seem to be a vital factor of employee satisfaction but it cannot be used as a thumb rule for all employees. According to Byrne (2005) different employees have different psychological profile so the determinants of individual motivation vary from person to person. Therefore, the allocation of job roles needs to be allocated depending on the psychological compatibility of the individual. A proper psychological compatibility with the roles and responsibilities allows an individual to achieve increases job involvement leading to employee motivation. According to Lunenburg (2011) the jobs that lead to voluntary involvement of an employee and induce motivation in them are characterized by the presence of certain factors. These factors are skill variety, identity, significance, autonomy as well as job feedback. Skill variety suggests that the level to which an employee is able to use a set a varied skills and abilities. Identity indicates the level to which an employee is given an "end to end" responsibilities, which leads to completion of a whole work. Significance is the perceived amount of impact made by the job. Autonomy is the freedom of decision making by the individual in his job role. Freedom is the availability of information about the performance level required for a particular job. These five factors determine the level of voluntary contribution or dedication of an employee towards his job role. As these factors increases, the motivational levels of the employees also increase, thereby leading to job satisfaction. The presence of these factors in a job profile leads to certain psychological changes within the employees. The individual starts to perceive his work to be a meaningful one and feels highly of its status. Secondly his feeling of responsibility for the outcome of his work increases. Finally, he is able to witness the impact of his activities. Higher the impact, the higher is his motivational levels. These characteristics of job design increases the job satisfaction level of an employee. Rush (1971) has described the concept of job satisfaction in the light of Herzberg’s theory and stated that the exact opposite of job satisfaction is “no satisfaction” and not dissatisfaction. He stated that the dissatisfying element of a job maintains the structure of the job, while the satisfying factors induce motivation among the employees and increases their productivity. Critique Job design is a dynamic concept that has faced several criticisms and has undergone several layers of changes over the years. During the post industrial period job design was based on labour division, task layout and work specialization, which is termed as the Mechanistic approach. This approach did not cover the concept of planning, controlling and coordinating. Even though this method caused less work overload, it also led to low levels of motivation and job satisfaction. The Motivational approach was initiated during the 1950s and the lack of human need addressing was highlighted. The concepts of feedback, task variety and work motivation. The biological perspective of designing jobs reduced the biological risk and physical costs of a job thereby decreasing the physical fatigues and health related complaints (Campion and Thayer, 1987). Based on the studies of (Hackman and Oldham (1980) job design has drawn a lot of attention of the human resources managers who focused on designing jobs that led to employee motivation. () explained that the tasks designed by an employer needs to be based on motivational factors that lead to higher job performance outcomes. () in his article highlighted the link between the characteristics that leads to job inspiration and job performance level, absenteeism and attrition rate. According to Johns, Xie and Fang (1992) the job profile that lacked a proper skeleton structure yielded dissatisfied employees. Moreover, the organizations which operate by myopic vision of accomplishing short term goals by employing power of authority and fear often face high attrition rate due severe job dissatisfaction. The range of organizational factors like technological advancements, collective norms, and relationship among the members of different hierarchy has major influence on employee motivational level and job satisfaction. Judge (2003) further added that the job designing techniques has shifted over the years to a psychological approach, which stated that an employee is highly motivated when his job has significant psychological meaning and potential variety of skill requirement, task significance and level of autonomy. Herzberg (1966) described the job enlargement as the increased utilization of an individual’s skills and abilities. However, this idea was contrasted by Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson (2007) as he mentioned that mere over utilization cannot be the sole reason for employee motivation. Other factors like compatibility of work environment, organizational policies also play a vital role in increasing teh satisfaction level of an employee. Zaccaro and Stone (1988) further added that the level of job complexity also influences the satisfaction level of the employees. Lower competencies in a job role increase the competencies of the human resources, thereby facilitating flexible output and increased organizational performance. Pierce (1980) opined that job role complexity is a factor that is perceived differently by different individuals. Employees who are characterized to be workaholic are mostly likely to prefer higher job complexity than the individuals who are not. Based on this statement (Stebbins and Shani (1995) explained that the proper allocation of tasks and job roles are imperative to employee satisfaction. Morgeson, Dierdorff and Hmurovic (2010) described two popular models that highlight the job design frame work. They are Job Characteristics model and Socio technical system. The job characteristics model was centred on the mechanical elements of the job that clearly defined the roles and responsibilities to an individual. However the socio technical system tries to highlight the impact of the role on an individual on a social context. Emphasizing on employee autonomy allowed an employer to control the performance level of the staffs. In case of lack in task variety the employees were forced to follow particular daily routine, which as a result increased boredom and created job dissatisfaction. In contrast if an individual is offered with wide range of tasks that requires the use of a range of skills and utilizing personal freedom, then it give him higher levels of autonomy, thereby increasing his satisfaction level. Garg and Rastogi (2006) mentioned that job satisfaction is indirectly linked to job satisfaction. However, they mentioned those certain jobs and their goal settings are directly proportional to performance enhancement of the employees. The increased performance level in turn increases the motivational levels thereby yielding job satisfaction. Conclusion Job satisfaction and job motivation are imperative to organizational success. Higher level of motivation leads to increased performance of individual employees, which in turn contributes to achieving the overall organizational success. Employee motivation can be achieved by several organizational activities, in which job design plays a vital role. Designing a job involves deciding of roles and responsibilities, required skills and abilities and psychological compatibility. It also includes other factors like reporting structure and remuneration. Allocating the right job to the right individual is imperative to organizational success as it helps to increase the motivational level of the employees and their satisfaction with their jobs. Increased job satisfaction reduces attrition rate, increases operational efficiency and reduces recruitment costs. Although the salary and incentive structure plays a role in increasing the employees’ motivation but the job characteristics and operational complexities and required range of skills are of prime importance for increasing the motivational level of the employees. The psychological profile of an employee also needs to be considered before job allocation, as mental compatibility is vital to sustainable satisfaction with a job profile. Reference List Byrne, K., 2005. Recruit the Right Person the First Time – Using Psychological Profiling for Volunteers and Career Fire Fighters. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Forensic Psychology. Campion, M.A. & Thayer, P.W., 1987. Job design: Approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs. Organizational Dynamics, 15(3), pp. 66-80. Campion, M.A. and Thayer, P.W., 1987. Job design: Approaches, outcomes, and trade-offs. Organizational Dynamics, 15(3), 66-80. Garg, P. and Rastogi, R., 2006. New Model of Job Design: Motivating Employees’ Performances. Journal of Management Development, 25(6), pp. 572-587. Gibbs, M., Levenson, A. and Zoghi, C. 2010. Why are jobs designed the way they are?- In Jobs, Training, and Worker Well-being. Emerald Insight. Pp. 107-154 Hackman, R.J. & Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work Redesign. Menlo Park. CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Herzberg, F., 1966. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Co. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., and Morgeson, F. P.,2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), pp. 1332-1356. Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., and Prennushi, G., 1997. The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. American Economic Review, 87(3), pp. 291–313. Johns, G., Xie, J. L., and Fang, Y., 1992. Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of Management, 18, pp. 657-676. Judge, T. A., 2003. Promote job satisfaction through mental challenge. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 75-89 Kahn, W. A., 1990. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724 Lunenburg, F.C., 2011. Motivating by Enriching Jobs to Make Them More Interesting and Challenging. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration. (15)1 Mathis, R.L., & Jackson, J. H., 2003. Individual Performance and Retention- Human Resource Management. 10th ed. Stamford: Thomson Publication. pp.66-99. Morgeson, F., Dierdorff, E. and Hmurovic, J., 2010. Work Design in situ: Understanding the Role of Occupational and Organizational Context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, pp. 351-360. Pierce, J.L., 1980. Job design in perspective. The Personnel Administrator, 25, 67-74. Rush, H., 1971. Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. New York: The Conference Board. Rush, H., 1971. Job design for motivation: Experiments in job enlargement and job enrichment. New York: The Conference Board, pp 12-19. Stebbins, M.W. and Shani, A.B., 1995. Organization design and the knowledge worker. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 16(1), p. 23-30. Truss, K., 2013. Job Design and Employee Engagement. An ‘Engage for Success’ White Paper. January. Zaccaro, S. J., and Stone, E. F., 1988. Incremental validity of an empirically based measure of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), pp. 245-252. Read More