Role of Job Design and Workforce Diversity in Improving Individual and Organisational Performance - Essay Example

Role of Job Design and Workforce Diversity in Improving Individual and Organisational Performance Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Motivation for any job starts with a need, a vision, a dream or desire to achieve the seemingly impossible. Employers expect their employees to have the attitude that develops the idea that they can achieve anything that is of benefit to the organisation. It is often expected that once employees have this in mind, their performance will increase, and hence the organisation’s productivity. It is obvious that more employees working together will produce more great ideas to the table and hence more solutions to the current or forecasted problems. Such a situation provides individuals with the chance to solve problems, ensure customer satisfaction, increase productivity, and manage the entire operation. Nevertheless, all these elements are determined by the organisation’s job design. According to Rothwell and Kazanas (2003), job design means the ways that decision-makers choose to organise work responsibilities, activities, duties and tasks. Maxwell’s (2008) definition of the term, which is also referred to as job redesign, is that it refers to any set of activities that encompass the alternation of interdependent systems of jobs with the intent of improving the quality of employee job experience as well as their on-the-job productivity. Maxwell further notes that companies may incorporate different methods of job design, but the end result focuses on increasing job satisfaction and performance. Along the same line, Garg and Rastogi (2006) note that there is an established body of knowledge to support the idea that certain jobs and setting of goals can enhance performance. This therefore means that how certain jobs are designed greatly affects how employees are able to perform and hence the productivity of the organisation. Many authors such as Saji (2004) and Von Bergen, Soper and Parnell (2005) have generally agreed that workforce diversity is an important issue in the progress of any organisation. According to Saji (2004), the concept of workforce diversity and management “has gained increased attention with globalisation and the need for more and more organisations to spread globally to reach customers across the world” (p. 41). Hence, there is a growing need to understand workforce diversity. Addressing this issue, Von Bergen (2005) argues that many managers and scholars have general agreed that diversity is a positive factor that leads to an organisation’s competitive economic advantage. In the same view, Konrad, Prasad and Pringle (2006) note that workforce diversity seems to be associated with more favourable attitudes toward work and better performance ratings and wages. However, these connotations remain largely untested. This means that workforce diversity may have a positive or negative influence, or no influence at all on an organisation’s performance (Von Bergen, Soper & Parnell, 2005). Against the highlighted background information, this paper aims to highlight the role of job design and workforce diversity, particularly how the two phenomena can improve individual and organisational performance. In addressing the topic, the essay is broken down into three sections that will touch on various issues. First is the importance of job design and workforce diversity issues in today’s business organisations. Secondly, the essay will address how job design and workforce diversity influence individual and organisational performance. The third section of the essay addresses the role played by human resource (HR) departments in improving the effectiveness of the various polices or activities defined under job design and workforce diversity. Importance of job design and workface diversity issues in today’s business organisations As noted in the introduction, human resource strategies, such as job design and workface diversity may often be perceived to contribute to organisational effectiveness. But according to Dryer and Reeves (1995), this may be true in relation to a review of applicable research, but it is not clear why or how. This is because some strategies seem to be more effective than their individual components at enhancing labour productivity; not all strategies are equally effective- though some are obviously better than others at both enhancing labour productivity and controlling employee turnover and improving product quality; the more effective strategies, however are not identical from study to study; and there is no convincing explanation or evidence that the more effective human resource strategies are those that best fit with the existing business strategies (Dryer and Reeves, 1995). In order to evaluate the significance of job design and workforce diversity, this paper dissects the two phenomena under different subheadings. Significance of job design issues As mentioned ealrlier, job design is one of the factors perceived to motivate performance. Well designed jobs can have a positive impact on employee satisfaction and hence the quality of work done in an organisation (Garg & Rastogi, 2006). Garg and Rastogi further suggest that it is important to design jobs in a way that reduces stress, enhances motivation, and increases employees’ satisfaction, which is then translated into improved performance so that organisations can effectively compete in the global marketplace. Traditionally, companies could find employees who matched the job at hand. This job design was based on the premise and belief that people would progressively become accustomed to the job, advance their productivity, and be satisfied. The standpoint was largely based on the idea put forward by Frederick Winslow Taylor, who opined that a scientific approach to management would improve production. Taylor’s idea emphasises the use of observation, analysis, measurement and improvement of work methods as well as economic incentives. Taylor came up with the four principles of scientific management as (1) develop a science for each element of work; (2) scientifically select, train, and teach the workers; (3) heartily cooperate with the employees; and (4) there is an equal division of job and responsibility between management and labour. These principles were received with different perceptions. Many authors (such as Hoopes, 2003) have criticised these principles, claiming that through them, Taylor depicted anti-unionism, lack of awareness of social factors, ignorance of simplistic motivational factors, authoritarianism, exploitation of workers, elitism and dishonesty. But Simha and Lemak (2010) have a different standpoint, arguing that the criticisms are unfortunate because they result from either failure to read and understand the original works done by Taylor or from misinterpretations of them. Indeed, there can be more discussions about Taylor’s principles of scientific management, and these are likely to elicit more praises and criticisms depending on the nature of organisation one relates the principles to. As noted earlier, there are no definite human resource strategies that can be applied across all organisations with similar results. Nonetheless, Taylor’s principles have been adopted by world leading organisations such as Kodak, Microsoft, and Mattel with outstanding success. Despite this, there is criticism that the principles are not popular with workers, who sometimes perceive the methods to unfairly increase output without a commensurate increase in compensation (Maxwell, 2008). Going by the arguments above, there is need for job designs that not only increase the output of organisation but also motivate individual employees to deliver more and derive satisfaction. In recent years, companies have shifted towards adapting jobs to people. Under this type of management, employees bring a wealth of information and creativity to a firm. This option allows employees to be fully utilised and not forced into performing a standard job. Jobs may change with each individual and are tailored to the workers. This belief necessitates the use of methods such as job enlargement, job enrichment, job rotation, and job characteristics when using the assumption that tailored jobs can enhance motivation and satisfaction (Maxwell, 2008). Job enlargement involves incorporating a wide array of responsibilities in a worker’s job by combining specialised tasks of comparable difficulty. The objective is to make the job more attractive and rewarding as it is perceived to allow employees to identify their contributions by to the overall production process. Hence, job enlargement can be noted to increase employee satisfaction, motivation and quality of production (Maxwell, 2008), but on the other hand, research has revealed that job enlargement per se does not have a significant and lasting positive impact on job performance (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001). Job rotation involves creating more variety for employees (Adomi, 2006). This allows workers to cyclically change jobs by moving them from one specialty to another. General Electric Company practices job rotation by hiring graduates and MBA holders directly into one of the company’s seven rotational programmes, not into a specific position. With rotation, trainees take six to eight months to gather skills they would gain in a number of years working on a standard job (Frase-Blunt, 2001). Other companies that have successfully implemented job rotation are New York Life and Eli Lilly and Company (Cheraskin and Campion, 1996). The significance of job rotation is that it lowers stress and increases motivation among employees, work experiences, flexibility, and enhances the ability to handle change (Maxwell, 2008). Job enrichment involves an increase in the level of accountability for planning and coordinating tasks (Maxwell, 2008). It is “the practical application of Frederick Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction” (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001, p. 217). This type of job design is perceived to be a good way to motivate employees as it increases their level of satisfaction (Maxwell, 2008). It is important to understand job design issues because as it has been discussed, different approaches to work design motivate employees differently. Notably, it is important to consider the nature of organisation and the type of job design that fits it, as no particular strategies can be applied to different organisations with similar results. Significance of workface diversity issues Many proponents of cultural diversity in the workplace argue that a culturally diverse workforce leads to sustainable competitive advantage and eventually superior performance (Barney & Wright, 1998; Richard, 2000; Von Bergen, Soper & Parnell, 2005). Organisations have become increasingly diverse with respect to race, ethnicity, gender and nationality. They are also becoming more diverse in other areas such as educational level, tenure, and functional background. Diversity implies any attribute that people are likely to use to identify themselves, and has filtered itself up to the highest level of firms (Carson, Mosley & Boyar, 2004). Workforce diversity can also be seen in term of the retention of more mature workers in organisation and the recruitment of a higher number of females and people from diverse backgrounds (Farrer, 2004). Top management teams of organisations and their significance as an important determining factor of firm performance continue to be a focal point of research on human resource management (Goll, Sambharya & Tucci, 2001). Importantly, it has been shown that demographic diversity has the potential to give rise to decision-making improvements, more innovation, greater creativity, and the ability to reach more and different types of customers (Carson, Mosley & Boyar, 2004). Good examples of these are airlines and multinational corporations which have a global presence. Without embracing workforce diversity, they may not be able to reach significant markets across the world. Human and social biases, filters as well as idiosyncratic processes at the top of the organisation are likely to spur competitive behaviours. Further, according to Carson, Mosley and Boyar (2004), workforce diversity can provide an opportunity for positive organisational outcomes such as increased morale a work, higher job satisfaction, intent to remain, enhanced commitment and improved individual performance. This in turn translates to higher organisational productivity. The downside of workforce diversity is that diverse work groups repeatedly have a more difficult time developing cohesion due to differing backgrounds (Gilbert, Stead & Ivancevich, 1999). When there is no cohesion within such groups, many teams may face increased hardships in developing interpersonal relationships, so members often rely on categorisation or stereotyping of their fellow team members (Carson, Mosley & Boyar, 2004). The corollary of this is a decline in organisational productivity. Therefore, like all human resource strategies, embracing workforce diversity has its merits and demerits, which must be critically understood before an organisation decides to delve into the same. How job design and workforce diversity influence individual and organisational performance The current discussion far shows a relationship between job design and individual and organisational performance. According to Garg and Rastogi (2006), core job dimensions have direct and indirect impacts on personal and work outcomes. Garg and Rastogi further quote several works supporting this idea. First, Morrison and et al (2005) found that job designs that provided an opportunity for a high level of employee control also increased the opportunities for the growth and exercise of skill. Second is Love and Edwards (2005) who concluded that perceived work demands, social support and job control though job design leads to high productivity. The third piece of work is by Sokoya (2000), who found in his study that the level of job satisfaction is determined by a “combination of jobs, work and personal characteristics” (Garg & Rastogi, 2006, p. 574). In line with this, rotating managers to different jobs adds the benefit of task variety, resulting in increased performance of employees and the organisation as a whole. Garg and Rastogi (2006) also quote Bassey (2002), who observed that task identity, skills, autonomy, task significance, job security, feedback and compensation are crucial factors for the motivation of employees. The attributes mentioned by Bassey (2002) [as cited by Garg and Rastogi (2006)] point back to the features of job design such as job rotation, job enlargement, job enrichment and so forth, which all aim at motivating employees, increasing their level of satisfaction, and hence the level of individual and organisational performance. Workforce diversity also has a huge bearing on individual and organisational performance. As noted earlier, organisationsl that have a global presence must embrace workforce diversity to reach all their customers effectively. According to McGuire and Bagher (2010), in an effort to respond effectively to employees and customers, many organisations are seeking to embed diversity at the core of their business practices. Such strategies result in changes to attitudes, behaviours and outlooks both within and outside the organisation. Multicultural settings dictate that employees should have abilities to deal with people from cultural background (McGuire & Bagher, 2010). As such, this poses a challenge to learn, and organisations are seeking employees from diverse backgrounds, who have the cultural, social and linguistic knowledge to adapt practices and products to fit the expectations of customers. McGuire and Bagher (2010) note further that this has become a practical business mandate rather than a social ideal for companies, especially those that have operations beyond national borders. Whereas the benefits of such integration cannot be gainsaid, it is also worth mentioning that organisations have to incur exorbitant costs to sustain diverse workforces. The driving force is therefore is a comparison between what organisations gain by promoting diversity and what they lose by doing so. Role of HR departments in improving the effectiveness of job design and workforce diversity Human resource management (HRM), which encompasses the polices, practices and systems that affect employees’ attitudes, behaviour and performance, should include strategies to develop effective job designs and promote workforce diversity. As mentioned earlier, the two phenomena have different effects on organisations, and it is upon HR departments to evaluate how various actions affect their organisations. As noted by Rogers (2010), the strategy underlying HRM practice needs to be considered to maximise their (positive) impact on the company. HRM activities include assessing and formulating work, evaluating human resource needs (that is HR planning) attracting potential employees, selecting employees (recruitment), informing employees how to conduct their duties and readying them for the future (that is training and development), setting employee reward schemes (remuneration), assessing their level of performance (performance management), and enhancing a positive work atmosphere (employee relations). By conducting all these functions, HR departments can ensure that various types of jobs are designed according to how employees want them to be or in line with how best employees can perform them. HR departments are also charged with the responsibility to know what various work environments demand – they can recruit while paying attention to gender balance, and even go beyond nationality boundaries if they are interested in bringing foreign talents or a certain degree of skills. In order to conform to the rapidly accelerating rate of technological innovation, organisations must invest in trading and development interventions. As such, human resource development interventions such as technical training, non-technical training, and coaching are designed to prepare the workforce for the future and for updating employees’ skill, knowledge and abilities (Rowold, 2008). According to Williams (2001), there is an emerging consensus in literature about employee creativity that managers influence subordinates’ creativity. Therefore, job design is not just about the junior employees, motivation has to start from the top to make every one satisfied and increase the organisation’s general performance. Managers have to be trained to ensure that they understand the characteristics of jobs that relate to creativity such as autonomy, complexity, variety, and feedback. HR departments also have to ensure that the work is challenging but free of distraction, and provide supervision that involves non-controlling support while encouraging supportive decision-making (Williams, 2001). With the combined effects of globalisation and workforce mobility on the rise, diversity training is becoming a more pressing need for human resource development professionals. Diversity training is the process by which a workforce is educated about socio-economic, cultural religious and racial differences among employees (McGuire & Bagher, 2010). Human resource departments have a role in ensuring that employees embrace these differences so as to create and maintain an effective work environment. Diversity training informs and trains employees to appreciate the differences between them regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, class or any other related dimension. The primary goal of diversity training should be to facilitate the integration of minority groups into the workplace by conferring on the workforce the skills, knowledge and motivation to work productively alongside the others who are different and interact effectively with a diverse customer population. The aim of diversity training should be to reduce and end workplace discrimination, and harassment of minority groups (McGuire & Bagher, 2010). Importantly, HR departments should ensure cohesion among employees to enhance individual performance and hence organisational performance. Conclusion Job design and workforce diversity are crucial elements of HR strategies. In this paper, both have been identified to have significant impacts on the level of individual performance as well as organisational performance. It has been discussed that various aspects of job design such as job rotation, job enrichment and job enlargement serve to enhance the level of motivation and satisfaction experienced by employees, which is ultimately reflected in the organisation’s general productivity. Along the same line, workforce diversity has been noted to increase employees’ productivity as employees from different backgrounds bring their ideas together in decision-making and solving problems. In order to achieve the perceived benefits of job design and workforce diversity, HR departments need to invest in areas such as redefining employee responsibility, redesigning jobs and training employees on workforce diversity. HR departments have a variety of functions that relate to management, and these include redesigning jobs and recruiting staff. As such, HR departments have to evaluate the impact of their decisions about jobs, recruitment, compensation and so on to maximise the benefits of job design and workforce diversity. References Adomi, E. E. (2006). “Job rotation in Nigerian university libraries,” Library Review, 55(1): 66-74. Barney, J. B. & Wright, P. M. (1998). “On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage.” Human Re source Management, 37: 31-46. Carson, C. M., Mosley D. C. & Boyar, S. L. (2004). “Performance gains through diverse top management teams.” Team Performance Management, 10(5/6): 121-126. Cheraskin, L. & Campion, M.A. (1996). “Study clarifies job rotation benefits,” Personnel Journal, 75 (11): p. 31. Dyer, L. & Reeves, T. (1995). “Human resource strategies and firm performance: What do we know and where do we need to go?” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3): 656:670. Farrer, J. (2004). “A practical approach to diversity.” Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(4): 175-177. Frase-Blunt, M. (2001). “Ready, set, rotate,” HR Magazine, 46(10): p. 46. Garg, P. & Rastogi, R. (2006). “New model of job design: Motivating employees’ performance.” Journal of Management Development, 25(6): 572-587. Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1999). “Diversity management: anew organizational paradigm,” Journal of Business Ethics, 21: 61-76. Goll, I., Sambharya, R. B. & Tucci, L.A. (2001). “Top management team composition, corporate ideology, and firm performance,” Management International Review, 41(2): 109-29. Hoopes, J. (2003). False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management and Why Their Ideas are Bad for Business Today, Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Konrad, A.M., Prasad, P. & Pringle J. K. (2006). Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage. Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organizational Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maxwell, J. R. (2008). “Work system design to improve the economic performance of the firm.” Business Process Management, 14(3): 432-446. McGuire, D. & Bagher, M. (2010) “Diversity training in organisations: an introduction.” Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(6): 493-505. Richard, O. C. (2000). “Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: A re source-based view”. Academy of Management Journal, 43:164-177. Rogers, E. (2010). Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rothwell, W.J. & Kazanas, H. C. (2003) Planning and Managing Human Resources: Strategic Planning for Human Resources Management (2nd edition). London: Human Resource Development. Rowold, J. (2008). “Multiple effects of human resource development interventions.” Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(1): 32-44. Saji, B. S. (2004) “Workforce diversity, temporal dimensions and team performance.” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 11(4): 40-59. Simha, A. & Lemak, D.J. (2010). “The value of original source readings in management education: The case of Frederick Winslow Taylor.” Journal of Management History, 16(2): 233-252 Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B. & Parnell, J. A. (2005). “Workforce diversity and organisational performance,” Equal Opportunities International, 24(3/4):1-16. Williams, S. (2001). “Increasing employees’ creativity by training their managers.” Industrial and Commercial Training, 33(2):63-68. Read More