The problems facing the team can now be explained by assessing how well the group design fits the inputs. The larger organization design of Ortiv is relatively differenti- ated and promotes flexibility and innovation in its manufacturing plants. The firm supports participative management, and the team meetings can be seen as an attempt to implement that approach at the new plant. Although it is too early to tell whether the team will succeed, there does not appear to be significant incongruity between the larger organization design and what the team is trying to do. Of course, team problem solving may continue to be ineffective, and the team might revert to a more autocratic approach to decision making. In such a case, a serious mismatch between the plant management team and the larger company would exist, and conflict between the two would likely result.
The team’s issues are highly interdependent and often uncertain, and meetings are intended to resolve plantwide problems affecting the various functional departments.
Those problems are generally complex and require the members to process a great deal of information and create innovative solutions. The team’s task structure and composition appear to fit the nature of team issues. The face-to-face meetings help to coordinate problem solving among the department managers, and except for the interpersonal skills, members seem to have the necessary task-relevant skills and expe- rience to drive the problem-solving process. There appears, however, to be a conflict in the priority between the problems to be solved by the team and the problems faced by individual managers.
More important, the key difficulty seems to be a mismatch between the team’s per- formance norms and interpersonal relations and the demands of the problem-solving task. Complex, interdependent problems require performance norms that support shar- ing of diverse and often conflicting kinds of information. The norms must encourage members to generate novel solutions and to assess the relevance of problem-solving strategies in light of new issues. Members need to address explicitly how they are using their knowledge and skills and how they are weighing and combining members’ indi- vidual contributions.
In our example, the team’s performance norms fail to support complex problem solv- ing; rather, they promote a problem-solving method that is often superficial, haphazard, and subject to external disruptions. Members’ interpersonal relationships reinforce adherence to the ineffective norms. Members do not confront personal differences or dissatisfactions with the group process. They fail to examine the very norms contributing to their problems. In this case, diagnosis suggests the need for group interventions aimed at improving performance norms and developing healthy interpersonal relations.
114
systems, and culture can have a powerful impact on the way jobs are designed and on people’s experiences in jobs. For example, company reward systems can orient employ- ees to particular job behaviors and influence whether people see job performance as fairly rewarded. In general, technology characterized by relatively uncertain tasks and low interdependency is likely to support job designs allowing employees flexibility and discretion in performing tasks. Conversely, low-uncertainty work systems are likely to promote standardized job designs requiring routinized task behaviors.15
Group design concerns the larger group or department containing the individual job.
Like organization design, group design is an essential part of the job context. Task structure, goal clarity, group composition, performance norms, and team functioning serve as inputs to job design. They typically have a more immediate impact on jobs than do the larger, organization design components. For example, group task struc- ture can determine how individual jobs are grouped together—as in groups requiring coordination among jobs or in ones comprising collections of independent jobs. Group composition can influence the kinds of people who are available to fill jobs. Group performance norms can affect the kinds of job designs that are considered acceptable, including the level of jobholders’ performances. Goal clarity helps members to priori- tize work, and group functioning can affect how powerfully the group influences job behaviors. When members maintain close relationships and the group is cohesive, group norms are more likely to be enforced and followed.16
Personal characteristics of individuals occupying jobs include their age, education, experience, and skills and abilities. All of these can affect job performance as well as how people react to job designs. Individual needs and expectations can also affect employee job responses. For example, individual differences in growth need—the need for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment—can determine how much people are motivated and satisfied by jobs with high levels of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback about results.17 Similarly, work motivation can be influenced by people’s expectations that they can perform a job well and that good job performance will result in valued outcomes.18
Design Components
Figure 6.1(C) shows that individual jobs have five key dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results.19
Skill variety identifies the degree to which a job requires a range of activities and abilities to perform the work. Assembly line jobs, for example, generally have limited skill variety because employees perform a small number of repetitive activities. On the other hand, most professional jobs, include a great deal of skill variety because people engage in diverse activities and employ several different skills in performing their work.
Task identity measures the degree to which a job requires the completion of a relatively whole, identifiable piece of work. Skilled craftspeople, such as tool-and-die makers and carpenters, generally have jobs with high levels of task identity. They are able to see a job through from beginning to end. Assembly line jobs involve only a limited piece of work and score low on task identity.
Task significance identifies the degree to which a job has a significant impact on other people’s lives. Custodial jobs in a hospital are likely to have more task significance than similar jobs in a toy factory because hospital custodians are likely to see their jobs as affecting someone else’s health and welfare.
Autonomy indicates the degree to which a job provides freedom and discretion in scheduling the work and determining work methods. Assembly line jobs generally have little autonomy: The work pace is scheduled, and people perform prepro- grammed tasks. College teaching positions have more autonomy: Professors usually 114 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
can determine how a course is taught, even though they may have limited say over class scheduling.
Feedback about results involves the degree to which a job provides employees with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance. Assembly line jobs often provide high levels of feedback about results, whereas college profes- sors must often contend with indirect and ambiguous feedback about how they are performing in the classroom.
Those five job dimensions can be combined into an overall measure of job enrichment.
Enriched jobs have high levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. They provide opportunities for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment at work. Many people find enriched jobs internally motivat- ing and satisfying. (Job enrichment is discussed more fully in Chapter 16.)
Fits
The diagnostic model in Figure 6.1(C) suggests that job design must fit job inputs to produce effective job outputs, such as high quality and quantity of individual perfor- mance, low absenteeism, and high job satisfaction. Research reveals the following fits between job inputs and job design:
Job design should be congruent with the larger organization and group designs within which the job is embedded.20 Both the organization and the group serve as a powerful context for individual jobs or positions. They tend to support and rein- force particular job designs. Highly differentiated and integrated organizations and groups that permit members to self-regulate their behavior fit enriched jobs. These larger organizations and groups promote autonomy, flexibility, and innovation at the individual job level. Conversely, bureaucratic organizations and groups relying on external controls are congruent with job designs scoring low on the five key dimensions. Both organizations and groups reinforce standardized, routine jobs. As suggested earlier, congruence across different levels of organization design promotes integration of the organization, group, and job levels. Whenever the levels do not fit each other, conflict is likely to emerge.
2. Job design should fit the personal characteristics of the jobholders if they are to perform effectively and derive satisfaction from work. Generally, enriched jobs fit people with strong growth needs.21 These people derive satisfaction and accom- plishment from performing jobs involving skill variety, autonomy, and feedback about results. Enriched jobs also fit people possessing moderate to high levels of task-relevant skills, abilities, and knowledge. Enriched jobs generally require com- plex information processing and decision making; people must have comparable skills and abilities to perform effectively. Jobs scoring low on the five job dimen- sions generally fit people with rudimentary skills and abilities and with low growth needs. Simpler, more routinized jobs requiring limited skills and experience fit better with people who place a low value on opportunities for self-direction and learning. In addition, because people can grow through education, training, and experience, job design must be monitored and adjusted from time to time.
Analysis
Application 6.2 presents an example of applying individual-level diagnosis to job design. The university is considering a change in the job design of a program admin- istrator. The application provides information about the current job and asks whether or not the proposed change makes sense. Examination of the inputs and job design features and how the two fit can help to make predictions about the advisability of the change.
1.
Job Design at Pepperdine University
The Graziadio School of Business and Management (GSBM) at Pepperdine University is one of the largest business schools in the country and has the third largest part-time MBA program. The school also provides graduate education aimed at differ- ent markets including an executive MBA (EMBA), a presidential/key executive MBA (PKE), and a specialized master’s degree in organization devel- opment (MSOD). The MSOD program’s curriculum consists of 10 four-unit classes over 22 months.
Eight of the classes are conducted off-site during eight-day sessions at both domestic and interna- tional locations. The MSOD program office consists of a faculty director, a program administrator, and an administrative assistant. In response to cost-cut- ting initiatives at the university level, a proposal was being considered to alter the job designs of the MSOD program staff.
The MSOD Program Administrator, the focus of this application, was responsible for marketing and recruiting new students, managing the delivery logistics of the off-site program, managing the stu- dents’ registration and financial relationships with the university, and maintaining relationships with the MSOD alumni. The marketing and recruiting duties involved working with the Program Director and the Director of Marketing for GSBM to develop marketing tactics including advertisements, bro- chures, conference marketing and support, and other market development activities. The recruit- ing process involved explaining the curriculum to prospective applicants, overseeing the application process for each applicant, working with the fac- ulty to have qualified applicants interviewed, and managing the admissions process. This too had to be coordinated with the director and the admin- istrative assistant. Once a class was admitted, the Program Administrator worked with various off- site facilities to establish room and board rates and catering services; managed the faculty’s travel and teaching requirements; managed various interses- sion activities including the final exam; managed the students’ enrollment and graduation proc- esses including their interface with the university’s registrar and finance office and the school’s financial aid office; and coached students through the pro- gram. After graduation, the Program Administrator served as an unofficial placement service, hooking
up eligible graduates with prospective employers who called looking for MSOD talent, provided career guidance, and worked with the program’s alumni organization to sponsor conferences and other alumni activities.
Each of the above activities was somewhat program- mable in that they occurred at specific times of the year and could be scheduled. However, because each applicant, student, class, or graduate was somewhat unique, the specific tasks or actions could not always be specified in advance and there were a number of exceptions and unique situations that arose during each day, month, or year.
The MSOD Program Administrator has worked with the MSOD program for over 15 years and was a fixture in both the MSOD and the general OD communities. Year over year, the Program Administrator delivered qualified applicants in excess of available space although that task had become increasingly difficult in the face of tui- tion increases, increasingly restrictive corporate policies on tuition reimbursement, and the ups and downs of the economy. He has handled both routine and nonroutine administrative details professionally, displays and reports a high level of job satisfaction and commitment to the program, and has been complimented formally and infor- mally by the students in the program. In fact, each cohort develops its own relationship with the administrator and he becomes a de facto member of almost every class. The alumni considered the Program Administrator a key and integral part of the MSOD program. The set of duties described above has evolved considerably over the Program Administrator’s tenure. In particular, he has become more involved and responsible for mar- keting and recruiting activities, and the alumni relations duties have been added in response to alumni requests that cannot be filled by tradi- tional university departments.
In an effort to improve efficiencies, and in recognition of the MSOD Program Administrator’s outstanding productivity, a proposal was being considered by GSBM administration to change the design of his job. The proposal suggested that the MSOD Program Administrator continue to perform all of the current duties of the position
application 6.2
Diagnosis of individual-level inputs answers the following questions:
What is the design of the larger organization within which the individual jobs are embedded? Although the example says little about the organization’s design, a number of inferences are possible. The school’s administration was attempting to reward the Program Administrator with a more enriched job. This suggests that the culture of the organization was supportive of employee involve- ment. The proposed change was also being considered, however, as part of an efficiency drive. The school is large in size, hosting the third largest part-time MBA program. This helps to explain, at the organization level, why a specialized master’s degree has been paired with two executive MBA programs and differentiated from the large part-time MBA program. To the extent the OD program has different stu- dents or different marketing, delivery, and alumni relations processes, there may be difficult points of integration.
What is the design of the group containing the individual jobs? Three indi- vidual jobs were grouped together according to the type of program. In this case, a faculty director, program administrator, and administrative assistant comprise the program office, but the office is clearly dependent on other university and school functions, such as the registrar’s office and financial aid, as well as with the teach- ing faculty. Each of the three roles has specific duties, but there is a clear sense that all three roles are highly interdependent. The Program Administrator must coordinate with the director on marketing, admissions, and curriculum decisions and with the administrative assistant on recruiting, program delivery, and routine administrative processes. Interaction during task performance is thus intense, and although partly scheduled, the work also must deal with a high number of excep- tions.
3. What are the personal characteristics of jobholders? The application provides some clues about the Program Administrator’s personal characteristics. First, he has stayed in the position for more than 15 years; this speaks to a loyalty or com- mitment trait. Second, his role has evolved considerably and suggests at least a moderate amount of growth need strength.
1.
2.
and, in addition, provide administrative support to two PKE classes from their initial class to gradua- tion. The duties of administrating the PKE program would be similar in nature to the delivery aspects of the MSOD program, including working with faculty to support their teaching efforts, manag- ing textbook ordering processes, and providing different facilities logistics activities. It would not include marketing, recruiting, and alumni devel- opment activities. He would receive additional
compensation for the increased responsibilities and a title change. The new position would share, with the EMBA program administrator, the supervision of an assistant program administrator, who would in turn supervise a pool of administrative assist- ants. The assistant program administrator would also report to the EMBA Program Administrator.
The MSOD/PKE program administrator would be shared between the MSOD program director and a director of EMBA/PKE programs.
118 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
Diagnosis of individual jobs involves the following job dimensions:
How much skill variety is included in the job? The Program Adminis trator’s role involves a wide variety of tasks, including recruiting students; advising prospective and current students on career opportunities; making input into marketing strategies and tactics; handling routine and nonroutine administrative matters such as registration, grade changes, and graduation processes; supervision of an administrative assistant; coordination with other functions and departments within the school and university; traveling to several sessions and handling logis- tics details; negotiating with a variety of resort properties on rooming costs, menus, meal costs, and room setup; working with alumni; and a variety of other tasks.
How much task identity does the job contain? The Program Adminis trator’s job is “all of a piece.” He sees and follows individuals through an entire process, as applicants, students, and alumni. He sees them as individuals, as professionals, and as members of a family or other community.
How much task significance is involved in the job? The Program Admini- strator’s task significance is very high. As a result of his work, he brings potential students into a well-respected program, works with them during their matricula- tion, advises them on their experiences in the program, and takes great pride in having an important hand in their personal and professional development. The opportunity to be integrally involved in a transformational educational process results in high task significance.
How much autonomy is included in the job? There is a moderate-to-high amount of autonomy and it has evolved and increased over the years of experi- ence in the job. The Program Administrator’s long tenure suggests that he is able to handle, without much supervision, almost every aspect of his job.
5. How much feedback about results does the job contain? Assuming a tra- ditional performance management process, the Program Administrator probably receives feedback from the director on his performance and on his strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor; from program evaluations, he receives feedback on how the program office is perceived in terms of its service quality; and from the students, he receives feedback on his willingness and ability to provide support and guidance.
In short, the Program Administrator receives a lot of feedback about his work.
When the job characteristics are examined together, the program administrator job appears to contain high levels of enrichment. Task variety, task identity, task sig- nificance, autonomy, and feedback about results are all high. Over time, the level of enrichment appears to have increased because skill variety and autonomy have increased.
The hypothesis that the job is currently well designed can be tested by assessing how well the job design fits the inputs. The fit between the job and the organization context is not clear. As a specialized master’s degree that is different from an execu- tive MBA program, the MSOD program office and the administrator’s job in particu- lar have evolved to be somewhat independent of the other programs. There doesn’t appear to be much sharing of tasks despite obvious opportunities such as student registration, graduation, book ordering, and others. Either the program is sufficiently different from the MBA programs that it warrants such independence or there are some important opportunities for improved efficiencies from the proposed change.
The program administrator job is well fit to the other roles in the program office and to the worker’s personal characteristics. For example, the technology of recruiting and educating students and managing the alumni is at least moderately, if not highly, uncertain and very interdependent. Tasks that are uncertain require considerable information processing and decision making. Organic and enriched jobs fit such tasks, 1.
2.
3.
4.