Job Design Questionnaire
Here are some statements about your job. How much do you agree or disagree with each?
MY JOB:
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE
SLIGHTLY
DISAGREE UNDECIDED
SLIGHTLY AGREE AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
1. provides much variety . . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. permits me to be left on my own to
do my own work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
3. is arranged so that I often have the opportunity to see jobs or projects
through to completion . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
4. provides feedback on how well I am
doing as I am working . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
5. is relatively significant in our
organization . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
6. gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in
how I do my work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
7. gives me the opportunity to do a
number of different things . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
8. provides me an opportunity to find
out how well I am doing . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
9. is very significant or important in
the broader scheme of things . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
10. provides an opportunity for
independent thought and action . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
11. provides me with a great deal of
variety at work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
12. is arranged so that I have the opportunity to complete the work
I start . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
13. provides me with the feeling that I know whether I am performing well
or poorly . . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
14. is arranged so that I have the chance to do a job from the beginning to the end (i.e., a chance to do the
whole job) . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
15. is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the
work gets done . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Scoring:
Skill variety ... questions 1, 7, 11 Task identity ... questions 3, 12, 14 Task significance ... questions 5, 9, 15 Autonomy ... questions 2, 6, 10 Feedback about results ... questions 4, 8, 13
SOURCE: Reproduced by permission of E. Lawler, S. Mohrman, and T. Cummings, Center for Effective Organizations, University of Southern California.
126 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
dimension, and a total score for each job dimension is computed simply by adding the responses for the three relevant items and arriving at a total score from 3 (low) to 21 (high). The questionnaire has wide applicability. It has been used in a variety of organizations with employees in both blue-collar and white-collar jobs.
Several research organizations have been highly instrumental in developing and refining surveys. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (http://
www.isr.umich.edu) and the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California (http://ceo-marshall.usc.edu) are two prominent examples. Two of the Institute’s most popular measures of organizational dimensions are the Survey of Organizations and the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Few other instru- ments are supported by such substantial reliability and validity data.7 Other examples of packaged instruments include Weisbord’s Organizational Diagnostic Questionnaire, Dyer’s Team Development Survey, Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, and Hackman and Oldham’s Job Diagnostic Survey.8 In fact, so many ques- tionnaires are available that rarely would an organization have to create a totally new one. However, because every organization has unique problems and special jargon for referring to them, almost any standardized instrument will need to have organization- specific additions, modifications, or omissions.
On the other hand, customized questionnaires are tailored to the needs of a particular client. Typically, they include questions composed by consultants or organi- zation members, receive limited use, and do not undergo longer-term development.
They can be combined with standardized instruments to provide valid and reliable data focused toward the particular issues facing an organization.
Questionnaires, however, have a number of drawbacks that need to be taken into account in choosing whether to employ them for data collection. First, responses are limited to the questions asked in the instrument. They provide little opportunity to probe for additional data or to ask for points of clarification. Second, questionnaires tend to be impersonal, and employees may not be willing to provide honest answers.
Third, questionnaires often elicit response biases, such as the tendency to answer ques- tions in a socially acceptable manner. This makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions from employees’ self-reports.
Interviews
A second important measurement technique is the individual or group interview.
Interviews are probably the most widely used technique for collecting data in OD.
They permit the interviewer to ask the respondent direct questions. Further prob- ing and clarification is, therefore, possible as the interview proceeds. This flexibility is invaluable for gaining private views and feelings about the organization and for exploring new issues that emerge during the interview.
Interviews may be highly structured—resembling questionnaires—or highly unstruc- tured—starting with general questions that allow the respondent to lead the way.
Structured interviews typically derive from a conceptual model of organ ization function- ing; the model guides the types of questions that are asked. For example, a structured interview based on the organization-level design components identified in Chapter 5 would ask managers specific questions about technology, strategy, organization struc- ture, measurement systems, human resources systems, and organization culture.
Unstructured interviews are more general and include the following broad ques- tions about organizational functioning:
What are the major goals or objectives of the organization or department?
How does the organization currently perform with respect to these purposes?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization or department?
What barriers stand in the way of good performance?
•
•
•
•
Although interviewing typically involves one-to-one interaction between an OD prac- titioner and an employee, it can be carried out in a group context. Group interviews save time and allow people to build on others’ responses. A major drawback, however, is that group settings may inhibit some people from responding freely.
A popular type of group interview is the focus group or sensing meeting.9 These are unstructured meetings conducted by a manager or a consultant. A small group of 10 to 15 employees is selected to represent a cross section of functional areas and hierarchical levels or a homogeneous grouping, such as minorities or engineers. Group discussion is frequently started by asking general questions about organizational features and func- tioning, an intervention’s progress, or current performance. Group members are then encouraged to discuss their answers more fully. Consequently, focus groups and sens- ing meetings are an economical way to obtain interview data and are especially effec- tive in understanding particular issues in greater depth. The richness and validity of the information gathered will depend on the extent to which the manager or the consul- tant develops a trust relationship with the group and listens to member opinions.
Another popular unstructured group interview involves assessing the current state of an intact work group. The manager or the consultant generally directs a question to the group, calling its attention to some part of group functioning. For example, group members may be asked how they feel the group is progressing on its stated task. The group might respond and then come up with its own series of questions about barriers to task performance. This unstructured interview is a fast, simple way to collect data about group behavior. It allows members to discuss issues of immediate concern and to engage actively in the questioning and answering process. This technique is limited, however, to relatively small groups and to settings where there is trust among employ- ees and managers and a commitment to assessing group processes.
Interviews are an effective method for collecting data in OD. They are adaptive, allowing the interviewer to modify questions and to probe emergent issues during the interview process. They also permit the interviewer to develop an empathetic relation- ship with employees, frequently resulting in frank disclosure of pertinent information.
A major drawback of interviews is the amount of time required to conduct and ana- lyze them. Interviews can consume a great deal of time, especially if interviewers take full advantage of the opportunity to hear respondents out and change their questions accordingly. Personal biases also can distort the data. Like questionnaires, interviews are subject to the self-report biases of respondents and, perhaps more important, to the biases of the interviewer. For example, the nature of the questions and the interac- tions between the interviewer and the respondent may discourage or encourage certain kinds of responses. These problems suggest that interviewing takes considerable skill to gather valid data. Interviewers must be able to understand their own biases, to listen and establish empathy with respondents, and to change questions to pursue issues that develop during the course of the interview.
Observations
One of the more direct ways of collecting data is simply to observe organizational behav- iors in their functional settings. The OD practitioner may do this by walking casually through a work area and looking around or by simply counting the occurrences of spe- cific kinds of behaviors (for example, the number of times a phone call is answered after three rings in a service department). Observation can range from complete participant observation, in which the OD practitioner becomes a member of the group under study, to more detached observation, in which the observer is clearly not part of the group or situation itself and may use film, videotape, and other methods to record behaviors.
Observations have a number of advantages. They are free of the biases inherent in self-report data. They put the practitioner directly in touch with the behaviors in question, without having to rely on others’ perceptions. Observations also involve
128 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
real-time data, describing behavior occurring in the present rather than the past. This avoids the distortions that invariably arise when people are asked to recollect their behaviors. Finally, observations are adaptive in that the consultant can modify what he or she chooses to observe, depending on the circumstances.
Among the problems with observations are difficulties interpreting the meaning underlying the observations. Practitioners may need to devise a coding scheme to make sense out of observations, and this can be expensive, take time, and introduce biases into the data. Because the observer is the data collection instrument, personal bias and subjectivity can distort the data unless the observer is trained and skilled in knowing what to look for; how, where, and when to observe; and how to record data systematically. Another problem concerns sampling: Observers not only must decide which people to observe, they also must choose the time periods, territory, and events in which to make those observations. Failure to attend to these sampling issues can result in highly biased samples of observational data.
When used correctly, observations provide insightful data about organization and group functioning, intervention success, and performance. For example, observations are particularly helpful in diagnosing the interpersonal relations of members of work groups. As discussed in Chapter 6, interpersonal relationships are a key component of work groups; observing member interactions in a group setting can provide direct information about the nature of those relationships.
Unobtrusive Measures
Unobtrusive data are not collected directly from respondents but from secondary sources, such as company records and archives. These data are generally available in organizations and include records of absenteeism or tardiness; grievances; quantity and quality of production or service; financial performance; meeting minutes; and corre- spondence with key customers, suppliers, or governmental agencies.
Unobtrusive measures are especially helpful in diagnosing the organization, group, and individual outputs presented in Chapters 5 and 6. At the organization level, for example, market share and return on investment usually can be obtained from com- pany reports. Similarly, organizations typically measure the quantity and quality of the outputs of work groups and individual employees. Unobtrusive measures also can help to diagnose organization-level design components—structure, work systems, control systems, and human resources systems. A company’s organization chart, for example, can provide useful information about organization structure. Information about con- trol systems usually can be obtained by examining the firm’s management information system, operating procedures, and accounting practices. Data about human resources systems often are included in a company’s personnel manual.
Unobtrusive measures provide a relatively objective view of organizational function- ing. They are free from respondent and consultant biases and are perceived as being
“real” by many organization members. Moreover, unobtrusive measures tend to be quantified and reported at periodic intervals, permitting statistical analysis of behaviors occurring over time. Examining monthly absenteeism rates, for example, might reveal trends in employee withdrawal behavior.
The major problems with unobtrusive measures occur in collecting such informa- tion and drawing valid conclusions from it. Company records may not include data in a form that is usable by the consultant. If, for example, individual performance data are needed, the consultant may find that many firms only record production information at the group or departmental level. Unobtrusive data also may have their own built-in biases. Changes in accounting procedures and in methods of recording data are common in organizations, and such changes can affect company records independently of what is actually happening in the organization. For exam- ple, observed changes in productivity over time might be caused by modifications
in methods of recording production rather than by actual changes in organizational functioning.
Despite these drawbacks, unobtrusive data serve as a valuable adjunct to other diag- nostic measures, such as interviews and questionnaires. Archival data can be used in preliminary diagnosis, identifying those organizational units with absenteeism, griev- ance, or production problems. Then, interviews might be conducted or observations made in those units to discover the underlying causes of the problems. Conversely, unobtrusive data can be used to cross-check other forms of information. For example, if questionnaires reveal that employees in a department are dissatisfied with their jobs, company records might show whether that discontent is manifested in heightened with- drawal behaviors, in lowered quality work, or in similar counterproductive behaviors.