A Report

ON

“Job redesign”

Tapping employee performance

By

Renu Yadav

10BSP1341

IBS MUMBai

INDEX

S.No. Topic Page1 Acknowledgement 3

2 Introduction 3

3 Job redesign process 3

4 Literature Review 4

5 Job Redesign- Improving performance 4

6 Approaches to job redesigning 4

7 Advantages of job redesigning

8 Factors affecting job redesigning

9 Conclusion

ACKNOWLEDEMENT

I would like to express my whole hearted gratitude to my faculty guide Prof. Radhamohan Chebolu for providing me with ample opportunity to learn about a new concept job redesigning. I am thankful to him for his creative and valuable ideas during the project which helped me to learn and improve my skills.

“It is the supreme artof the teacherto awaken joy

in creative expressionand knowledge.”

- Albert Einstein

JOB REDESIGN

Why Job Redesign?

A basic purpose of reengineering and job redesign is to improve the procedures of the organization through effective problem-solving and increased adaptability to changing environmental conditions. While the desired outcomes are admirable and highly desired, many managers have found that they lacked sufficient data, information and adequate guides to pursue their efforts of redesign (Douglas, 1999). In recent decades the Job Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1976) has been a significant underlying idea of why job redesign should be conducted. The basic notion is that redesigned jobs not only hold out the promise of increases in productivity and quality but also more empowered employees in the workplace. In light of this organizations have been working to develop new ways to gain the most advantage from the combination of human resources of the organizational social system with technical elements of the traditional machine model (Neal & Tromley, 1995).

Introduction

“Restructuring the elements including tasks, duties and responsibilities of a specific job in order to make it more encouraging and inspiring for the employees or workers is known as job redesigning. “

The process includes revising, analyzing, altering, reforming and reshuffling the job-related content and dimensions to increase the variety of assignments and functions to motivate employees and make them feel as an important asset of the organization. The main objective of conducting job redesigning is to place the right person at the right job and get the maximum output while increasing their level of satisfaction.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the dimensions of job redesign. It highlights their overlapping nature. It also indicates that many factors affect job design, such as managerial style, unions, working conditions, and technology.

Job Redesigning Process

Revising the Job Content: Job redesigning process involves recollecting and revising job-related information to determine the inconsistency between person and the job.

Analyzing Job-related Information: Once the job analyst is through with recollecting and revising the job content, analyzing the discrepancies is the next step. It is done to determine the hindrances in performing job-related tasks and duties and investigate why an employee is not able to deliver the expected output.

Altering the Job Elements: The next step is to amend the job elements. It may include cut back on extra responsibilities or addition of more functions and a higher degree of accountability. The basic aim of altering the job content is to design a job in such a manner that encourages employees to work harder and perform better.

Reformation of Job Description and Specification: After altering the job elements, a job analyst needs to reform the job description and specification in order to make sure that the worker placed at a particular place is able to deliver what is expected of him.

Reshuffling the Job-related Tasks and Duties: Next is to reallocation of new or altered tasks and functions to employees. It may be done by rotating, enriching, enlarging and engineering the job. The idea is to motivate the performers while increasing their satisfaction level

Literature Review

“The redesign of jobs and work systems is frequently carried out to increase organizational productivity and/or to improve the quality of the work experiences of organization members.

Four theoretical approaches to work redesign are reviewed and compared, and the kinds of personal and work outcomes that can reasonably be expected from restructuring jobs are discussed. A number of unanswered questions about the strategy and tactics of redesigning jobs are set forth, and some problems in installing work redesign programs in existing organizations are outlined.”

The term work redesign refers here to activities that involve the alteration of specific jobs (or systems of jobs) with the intent of improving both productivity and the quality of employee work experiences. Although there are no generally accepted criteria for what is a well-designed job, there are some commonalities in work redesign projects. Typically, job specifications are changed to provide employees with additional responsibility for planning, setting up, and checking their own work; for making decisions about work methods and procedures; for establishing their own work pace; and for dealing directly with the clients who receive the results of the work. In many cases, jobs that previously had been simplified and segmented into many small parts in the interest of production efficiency are reassembled and made into larger and more meaningful wholes.Sometimes work is redesigned to create motivating and satisfying jobs for individual employees who work more or less on their own. Such activities are usually known as "job enrichment" (Herzberg, 1974).1 Alternatively, work may be designed as a group task, in which case a team of workers is given autonomous responsibility for a large and meaningful module of work. Such teams typically have the authority to manage their own social and performance processes as they see fit; they receive feedback (and often rewards) as a group; and they may even be charged with the selection, training, and termination of their own members. These teams are variously known as "autonomous work groups" (Gulowsen, 1972), "self-regulating work groups" (Cummings, 1978), or "self-managing work groups" (Hackman, 1978). A wellknown and well-documented example of the design of work for teams is the Topeka pet food plant of General Foods.Both individual and team work redesign can be viewed as responses and alternatives to the principles for designing work that derive from classical organization theory and the discipline of industrial engineering. These principles specify that rationality and efficiency in organizational operations can be obtained through the simplification, standardization, and specialization of jobs in organizations. These principles are based on the assumption that most employees, if managed well, will work efficiently and effectively on such jobs. Research over the last several decades has documented a number of unintended and dysfunctional consequences—both for workers and for their employing organizations—of work designed in accord with classical principles. Current approaches to work redesign, then, tend to have a behavioural emphasis and attempt to create jobs that enhance work productivity without incurring the human costs that have been associated with the traditional approaches.Theories of Work Redesign Most work redesign activities are guided by one or another of the four theoretical approaches summarized below. We begin with a theory that has a very psychological focus (activation theory), move next to two "mid-range" theories (motivation-hygiene theory and job characteristics theory), and conclude with a more molar and systemfocused theory (sociotechnical systems theory).

ACTIVATION THEORY

As noted above, numerous human problems have been associated with work on routine, repetitive tasks. Included are diminished alertness, decreased responsiveness to new stimulus inputs, and even impairment of muscular coordination. Employees who work on highly routine jobs are often observed to daydream, to chat with others rather than work on their tasks, to make frequent readjustments of posture and position, and so on.Activation theory can help account for such behaviours (Scott, 1966). Basically, activation theory specifies that a person's level of activation or "arousal" decreases when sensory input in unchanging or repetitive, leading to the kinds of behaviour specified above. Varying or unexpected patterns of stimuli, on the other hand, keep an individual activated and more alert, although over time the individual may adapt to even a varied pattern of stimulation.One approach to work redesign that is based on activation theory is that of job rotation, that is, rotating an individual through a number of different jobs in a given day or week, with the expectation that these varied job experiences will keep the person from suffering the negative consequences of excessively low activation. The problem, it seems, is that people adapt fairly quickly even to new stimulation, and if the new task is just as boring as the old one, then no long-term gains are likely. At present, activation theory seems most useful for understanding the consequences of jobs that are grossly under stimulating (or over stimulating). Except for the pioneering work by Scott (1966) and more recent theorizing by Schwab and Cummings (1976), relatively little progress has been made in applying the tenets of activation theory to the design of jobs so that they foster and maintain high task-oriented motivation.

MOTIVATION-HYGIENE THEORYBy far the most influential theory of work redesign to date has been the Herzberg two-factor theory of satisfaction and motivation (Herzberg, 1976; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This theory proposes that factors intrinsic to the work determine how satisfied people are at work. These factors, called "motivators," include recognition, achievement, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth in competence. Dissatisfaction, on the other hand, is caused by factors extrinsic to the work, termed "hygienes." Examples include company policies, pay plans, working conditions, and supervisory practices. According to the Herzberg theory, a job will enhance work motivation only to the extent that motivators are designed into the work itself; changes that deal solely with hygiene factors will not generate improvements (cf. Katzell, 1980).Motivation-hygiene theory has inspired a number of successful change projects involving the redesign of work (e.g., Ford, 1969; Paul, Robertson, & Herzberg, 1969). Because the message of motivation-hygiene theory is simple, persuasive, and directly relevant to the design and evaluation of actual organizational changes, the theory continues to be widely known and generally used by managers of organizations in this country.

JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORYThis approach attempts to specify the objective characteristics of jobs that create conditionsfor high levels of internal work motivation on the part of employees. Based on earlier research by Turner and Lawrence (1965), current statements of the theory suggest that individuals will be internally motivated to perform well when they experience the work as meaningful, they feel they have personal responsibility for the work outcomes, and they obtain regular and trustworthy knowledge of the results of their work. Five objective job characteristics are specified as the key ones in creating these conditions: skill variety, task

identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback from the job itself. When a job is redesigned to increase its standing on these characteristics, improvements in the motivation, satisfaction, and performance of job incumbents are predicted. However, individual differences in employee knowledge and skill and in need for personal growth are posited as influencing the effects of the job characteristics on work behaviours and attitudes. Strongest effects are predicted for individuals with ample job-relevant knowledge and skill and relatively strong growth needs.

FIGURE 2. Job-Characteristics Model of Hackman and Oldham (1980, p. 90).

SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEMS THEORYContrasting the job-focused theories mentioned above, the sociotechnical systems approach emphasizes the importance of designing entire work systems, in which the socialand technical aspects of the workplace are integrated and mutually supportive of one another (Emery & Trist, 1969). This approach emphasizes the fact that organizations are imbedded in, and affected by, an outside environment. Especially important are cultural values that specify how organizations "should" function and generally accepted roles that individuals, groups, and organizations are supposed to play in society. Thus, there is constant interchange between what goes on in any given work organization and what goes on in its environment. This interchange must be carefully attended to when work systems are designed or changed (Davis & Trist, 1974).When redesigned in accord with the sociotechnical approach, work systems are never changed in piecemeal fashion. Although jobs, rewards, physical equipment, spatial arrangements, work schedules (and more) may be altered in a sociotechnical intervention, none of these is taken as the primary focus of change activities. Instead, organization members (often including rank-and-file employees and/or representatives of organized labor as well as managers) examine all aspects of organizational operations that might affect how well the work is done or the quality of organization members' experiences. Changes that emerge from these explorations

invariably involve numerous aspects of both the social and technical systems of the organization. Typically, however, such changes do involve the formation of groups of employees who share responsibility for carrying out a significant piece of work—the "autonomous work group" idea mentioned earlier (Cummings, 1978). Such groups are becoming an increasingly popular organizational innovation and now are frequently seen, even in work redesign projects that are not explicitly guided by sociotechnical theory.

COMPARISON OF THE THEORETICAL APPROACHESActivation theory, motivation-hygiene theory, job characteristics theory, and sociotechnicalsystems theory offer different approaches to work redesign. Activation theory specifically addresses the dysfunctional aspects of repetitive work, whereas motivation-hygiene theory and job characteristics theory emphasize ways to enhance positive motivational features of the work. The Herzberg model differs from the job characteristics theory in proposing a more general process for increasing motivation (i.e., identify motivators and increase them), whereas the job characteristics approach emphasizes specific diagnostic procedures to optimize the fit between people and their work. Sociotechnical systems theory contrasts sharply with the other theories in that it emphasizes the design of work for groups rather than individuals. Another difference among the theories lies in their assumptions about how the redesign of work should be planned and implemented. Activation and motivation-hygiene theories appear to put the burden on management to identify the problematic aspects of the work. Neither approach suggests extensive gathering of information and inputs from employees. At the other end of the continuum, sociotechnical work redesign projects involve a high degree of worker participation. Job characteristics theory emphasizes the importance of understanding workers' perceptions and attitudes toward their jobs but does not explicitly require their participation in actual planning for work redesign.

Outcomes of Work RedesignHow successful are work redesign activities in achieving their intended objectives?Systematic data about the matter are surprisingly sparse, given the popularity of work redesign as an organizational change technique. My own assessment of the state of the evidence is summarized briefly below; more thorough and/or analytic reviews are provided elsewhere.1. Work redesign, when competently executed in appropriate organizational circumstances,generally increases the work satisfaction and motivation of employees whose jobs are enriched. Especially strong effects have been found for employees' level of satisfaction with opportunities for personal growth and development on the job as well as for their level of internal work motivation (i.e., motivation to work hard and well because of the internal rewards that good performance brings). There is little evidence that work redesign increases satisfaction with aspects of the organizational context such as pay, job security, co-workers, or supervision. Indeed, enrichment of the work sometimes prompts decreases in satisfaction with pay and supervision, especially when these organizational practices are not altered to mesh with the new responsibilities and increased autonomy of the persons whose jobs are redesigned.

2. The quality of the product or service provided generally improves. When a job is well designed from a motivational point of view, the people who work on that job tend to

experience self-rewards when they perform well. And, for most people, performing well means producing high-quality work of which they can be proud.

3. The quantity of work done sometimes increases, sometimes is unchanged, and sometimes even decreases. What happens to production quantity when work is redesignedmay depend mostly on the state of the work system prior to redesign (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Specifically, productivity gains would be expected under two circumstances:

(a) when employees were previously exhibiting markedly low productivity because they were actively "turned off by highly routine or repetitive work or

(b) when there were hidden inefficiencies in the work system, as it was previously structured—for example, redundancies in the work, unnecessary supervisory or inspection activities, and so on. If such problems pre-existed in the work unit, then increases in the quantity of work performed are likely to appear after the work is redesigned.

If such problems were not present, then quantity increase would not be anticipated ; indeed, decreases in quantity might even be noted as people worked especially hard on their enriched jobs to produce work of especially high quality.

Job Redesign: Improving Performance

 

Designing and redesigning jobs in such a way that they become attuned to what individual employees are able and willing to do is an important issue in the world of work today. In order to prevent stress, jobs must enable employees to remain motivated, work effectively, develop themselves and not become isolated. Job redesign aims to improve jobs in the organization (2003).

Job Design and Job RedesignThe goal of job design and job redesign is to create or reconstitute jobs or work roles

in terms of work functions and worker capabilities that are both appealing to individuals and re in alignment with the organization’s strategy and vision ( 1999). Job design involves the planning of the job including its contents, the methods of performing the job, and how it relates to other jobs in the organization (Rahim 2001). Job design and redesign’s goal is to connect the needs of the individuals performing various jobs with the productivity needs of the organization. An important aim for job design and redesign is to provide individuals with meaningful work that fits effectively into the flow of the organization. The goal of job design

is simplifying, enriching, enlarging, or otherwise changing jobs to make the efforts of each employee fit together better with jobs performed by other workers. Redesigning one job can make the overall system work more efficiently (2002).

Job redesign according to (1975) is more likely to improve performance when:

The changes in job content are sufficiently non-trivial to be perceptible to the workers, typically in terms of greater self-regulation, diversity, meaningfulness, challenge, and social responsibility.

The changes in job content are part of a more pervasive program of improved working policies and practices, which include also as elements adequate pay and job security, proper resources and working conditions, increased mutual influence by people at all levels, and constructive labour-management relations.

Job Redesign: Improving Performance

Job redesign can improve organizational performance through job rotation, horizontal job enlargement, vertical job enlargement and the creation of autonomous working groups.

Job Rotation

Workers can change places from time to time. Under this system the job of each worker may be simple, but variety is introduced as they swap places. Workers can learn to carry out any number of the tasks, instead of staying put at one position on the line (1993).

Horizontal Job Enlargement

A given workstation may be allocated more to do – thus the cycle time is extended. This change may also mean that the transformation to the product is more obvious. The enlargement is ‘horizontal’ in the sense that the level of difficulty is constant (1993).

Vertical Job Enlargement (Job Enrichment)

Vertical job enlargement gives the worker more responsibilities in handling his or her job. It is also known as ‘job enrichment’ because it contributes to self-esteem. Added responsibility for planning and for quality control indicates to a person that he or she is being trusted to exercise judgment (1993).

From the management’s viewpoint, jobs, as performed, must lead to efficient operations quality products, and well-maintained equipment. From the workers’ viewpoint, jobs must be meaningful and challenging, provide feedback on performance, and call on their decision-making skills. Jobs must be designed in such a way that they allow the

organization to take full advantage of technological breakthroughs without alienating the workers affected by change. Redesigning jobs allow companies to retain skilled workers, while enhancing output (2002).

Job Redesign Approaches

1. Motivational Approach

Grounded in the earlier work on job enrichment, job enlargement and various characteristics of jobs, the motivational approach has primarily been developed within the domain and scope of organizational psychology. The motivational approach has generally searched for job design constructs that will be correlated with such primary outcomes variables as satisfaction, motivation, involvement, absenteeism, and job performance (1994).

2. Mechanistic Approach

The mechanistic approach to job redesign has generally been on improving the efficiency with which jobs can be performed. Jobs that are constructed according to the mechanistic approach require less training and less expensive to staff. In essence the jobs are simplified and have lower levels of responsibility. With mental demands being lower, output quality may increase (1994).

3. Perceptual-Motor Approach

The presumed benefits of the perceptual-motor approach include the increase in output quality and a predicted decrease in accident rates due to the emphasis on the reliability and safety of the job. The reduced mental demands of the job would also reduce employee stress and fatigue (1994).

 

           

 

Job Redesign: Satisfaction, Motivation and Performance

Job Satisfaction

Early organizational theorists such as Abraham Maslow and Frederick Herzberg stated that job satisfaction is caused by individuals’ desires to fulfil personal needs, which include intrinsic and extrinsic needs. Researchers who follow this approach argue that an individual’s job satisfaction is determined by the degree to which job characteristics will fulfil the person’s needs. Some of the factors that affect job satisfaction are:

Task clarity – refers to the degree to which job tasks and the rules affecting how to perform them are clearly communicated to individuals. It affect individuals’ sense of knowing what is expected of them and what to do (1997).

Skill utilization – refers to the degree to which jobs allow individuals to utilize their skills and abilities. This factor is believed to be a strong predictor of job satisfaction, since individuals desire jobs that allow them to make good use of their skills and abilities ( 1997).

Task significance – define as the degree to which individuals perceive their jobs contribute to organizational missions. This factor affects individuals’ experience of the meaningfulness of their jobs.

Relationship with Co-workers and Supervisors – the job satisfaction of individuals within a work group can be influenced by both co-workers and supervisors, especially as tasks performed by individuals become more interrelated ( 1997).

Employee Motivation

(2002b) defined motivation as the process of satisfying internal needs through actions and behaviours. It is concerned with a composite of mental and physical drives, combined with the environment that makes people behave the way they do. Adair (2004) believes that motivation is something within a person that pushes him to move forwards, to achieve a goal, and to make a progress in a task. Signs of motivation in a person are an energy and determination to achieve. A motivated person displays the following signs:

A willingness to work Dedication to the project or common cause Alignment with the goals of the organization Commitment Hunger for achievement Energy Drive and determination Persistence Strength of purpose Orientation to work

According to Herzberg’s theory of motivation, people have two sets of needs and requirements: motivator needs and hygiene needs. Motivator needs are related to the nature of the work itself and how challenging it is .Outcomes such as interesting work, autonomy, responsibility, being able to grow and develop on the job and a sense of accomplishment and achievement help to satisfy motivator needs. Hygiene needs are related to the physical and psychological context in which the work is performed. Hygiene needs are satisfied by outcomes such as pleasant and comfortable working conditions, pay, job security, good relationships with co workers, and effective supervision ( 2002).

Herzberg’s two-factor theory provided real impetus to job redesign. Herzberg’s approach to job redesign involves improvement of the motivation factors, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and opportunity for growth. This approach is based on the assumption that job enrichment or redesign increases job satisfaction, which, in turn, increases motivation and better performance ( 2001).

(1975) identified five core dimensions that must be considered in job redesign. These dimensions are positively related to motivation, satisfaction, and performance. The five core dimensions are:

Skill variety – this refers to the degree to which a job requires a variety of activities that involve the use of a number of different skills and talents of employees.

Task identity – this refers to the degree to which the job requires an employee to perform a complete piece of work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.

Task significance – this refers to the degree to which the job has an impact on the live or work of other people within or outside the organization.

Autonomy – this refers to the degree to which the job provides freedom, independence, and discretion to the employee in scheduling his or her work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out.

Feedback – this refers to the amount of information that results from the performance of a job by an employee about how well she or he is performing ( 2001).

The jobs that are high on skill variety, task identity, and task significance influence the meaningfulness of the work .Job autonomy and job feedback influence responsibility for outcomes of the work and knowledge of the actual results of the work. Higher levels of psychological states lead to positive personal and work outcomes, such as high internal

work motivation, high growth satisfaction, high general satisfaction and high work effectiveness (1999).

Advantages of Job Redesigning

Enhances the Quality of Work-Life: Job redesigning motivates the employees and enhances the quality of their work life. It increases their on-the-job productivity and encourages them to perform better.

Increases Organization’s and Employees’ Productivity: Altering their job functions and duties makes employees much comfortable and adds to their satisfaction level. The unambiguous job responsibilities and tasks motivate them to work harder and give their best output. Not only this, it also results in increased productivity of an organization.

Brings the Sense of Belongingness in Employees: Redesigning job and allowing employees to do what they are good at creates a sense of belongingness in them towards the organization. It is an effective strategy to retain the talent in the organization and encouraging them to carry out their responsibilities in a better fashion.

Creates a Right Person-Job Fit: Job Redesigning plays an important role in creating a right person-job fit while harnessing the full potential of employees. It helps organization as well as employees in achieving their targets or goals.

Therefore, the purpose of job redesigning is to identify the task significance and skill variety available in the organization and reallocating the job-related tasks and responsibilities according to the specific skills possessed by an employee.

FACTORS AFFECTING JOB DESIGN

Job design is affected by organizational, environmental and behavioral factors. A properly designed job will make it more productive and satisfying .If a job fails on this count, it must

be redesigned based on the feedback. The various factors affecting job design are the following:

Organizational factors

Organizational factors include characteristics of task, work flow, ergonomics and work practices.

Characteristics of Task: Job design requires the assembly of a number of tasks into a job or a group of jobs. An individual may carry out one main task which consists of a number of inter-related elements or functions. On the other hand , task functions may be spilt between a team, working closely together or strung along an assembly line. In more complex jobs, individuals may carry out a variety of connected tasks, each with a number of functions, or these tasks may be allocated to a group of workers or divided between them. Complexity in a job may be a reflection of the number and variety of tasks to be carried out, or the range and scope of the decisions that have to be made, or the difficulty of predicting the outcome of decisions.

The internal structure of each task, consists of three elements Planning , Executing and Controlling. A completely integrated job will include all these elements for each of the tasks involved .The workers or group of workers having been given objectives in terms of output, quality and cost targets, decide on how the work is to be done, assemble the resources, perform the work and monitor output, quality and cost standards. Responsibility in a job is measured by the amount of authority , someone to put to do all these things.

The ideal design is to integrate all the three elements.

Work Flow: The flow of work in an organization is strongly influenced by the nature of the product or service. The product or service usually suggests the sequence and balance between jobs, if the work is to be done efficiently .After the sequence of jobs is determined, the balance between the jobs is established.

Ergonomics: Ergonomics is concerned with designing and shaping jobs to fit the physical abilities and characteristics of individuals so that ,they perform the jobs effectively .Ergonomics helps employees to design jobs in such a way that workers’ physical abilities and job demands are balanced .It does not alter the nature of job tasks, but alters the location of tools ,switches and other facilities, keeping in view that handling the job is the primary consideration.

Work Practices: Work practices are set ways of performing work .These methods may arise from tradition or the collective wishes of employees.Work practices were till now, determined by time and motion study which established the standard time needed to complete the given job. The study required repeated observations .The accuracy of the readings depended on competence of the work study engineer .Deviations from the normal work-cycle caused distortions in measurements, was biased towards existing work practices with little effort at method’s improvement and could be carried out only when, production was under way.

A new technique has now emerged which, if introduced, could drastically alter the work practices. Called the MOST (Maynard Operating Sequence Technique) ,the technique uses a standard formula to list the motion sequence ascribed in index values.

Environmental factors

Environmental factors affect the job design. These factors that have a bearing on job design are employees abilities and availability and social and culture expectations.

Employee Abilities and Availability: Efficiency consideration must be balanced against the abilities and availability of the people to do the work.

When Henry Ford made use of the assembly line, for example , he was aware that most potential workers lacked any automobile making experience .So, jobs were designed to be simple and required little training .Therefore, considerable thought must be given, as to who will actually do the work.

Social and Cultural Expectations: During the earlier days, securing a job was the primary consideration. The worker was prepared to work on any job and under any working conditions. Now, it is not the same. Literacy, knowledge and awareness of workers have improved considerably .So also, their expectations from the job ,Hence, jobs be designed to meet the expectations of workers.

When designing jobs for international operations, uniform designs are almost certain to neglect national and cultural differences .Hours of work holidays, vacations, rest breaks ,religious beliefs, management styles and worker sophistication and attitudes are just some of the predictable differences that can affect the design of jobs across international borders. Failure to consider these social expectations can create social dissatisfaction, low motivation ,hard to fill job openings and a low quality of work life ,especially, when foreign nationals are involved in the home country or overseas.

Behavioural Factors: Behavioural factors include feedback, autonomy, use of abilities and variety.

Conclusion

Job redesign can improve performance through work intensification as fewer employees are responsible for performing jobs that are similar. Through effective job redesign, employee contribution, performance and reward are being connected. Employees are given more responsibility in performing their jobs and they are able to deal with job-related issues. Increased responsibility motivates employees to perform better. Through job redesign work efficiency is increased. The discussion about the relationship between job satisfaction, employee motivation and performance reveals that performance are affected by both job satisfaction and employee motivation. Job satisfaction and employee motivation have a significant impact on performance. Job redesign increases job satisfaction, which, in turn, increases motivation and better performance. Employee motivation is affected by factors such as challenging work, autonomy, responsibility, growth and development and a sense of accomplishment. Job satisfaction is affected by factors like task clarity, skill utilization, task significance and relationship with co-workers and supervisors. Redesigning jobs can improve performance if it is aimed at providing employees with satisfying jobs and fulfilling their needs.

References

Cherns, A. The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 1976, 29, 783-792.Cummings, T. G. Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy ofManagement Review, 1978,3, 625-634.

Work Redesign and Motivation. J. Richard hackman, Professional psychology,American psychological association, 1980Cummings, T. G., & Srivastva, S. Management of work: A socio-technical systems approach.Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1977.

Davis, L. E. Developments in job design. In P. B. Warr (Ed.), Personal goals and work design.London: Wiley, 1975.

Davis, L. E., & Trist, E. L. Improving the quality of work life: Sociotechnical case studies.In J. O'Toole (Ed.), Work and the quality of life. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Instituteof Technology Press, 1974.

Katzell, R. A., & Yankelovich, D. Work, productivity and job satisfaction. New York: ThePsychological Corporation, 1975.

Different HR websites and online databases.