vironment fit which focuses on matching the characteristics ofjobs to the abilities ... We begin with a review of issues in person-environment fit theory that.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 31, 278-296 (1987)
Work Design as an Approach to Person-Environment Fit CAROL
T. KULIK
Carnegie Mellon
GREG University
University
R. OLDHAM
of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
AND
J. RICHARD HACKMAN Harvard
University
Job characteristics theory may be conceptualized as a model of person-environment fit which focuses on matching the characteristics ofjobs to the abilities and needs ofjobholders. In this paper, we explore the potential costs and benefits of person-job congruence, and use recent developments in the person-environment fit literature to suggest ways in which characteristics of jobs and characteristics of individuals may influence one another. Implications for future research in the work design area are discussed. o 1987 Academic press, IK.
Job characteristics theory (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980) specifies the task conditions under which individuals are predicted to prosper in their work. Originally framed as a model of task motivation, the theory also can be viewed from the perspective of person-environment fit. In this view, one can characterize the theory as a means of analyzing the fit between the characteristics of jobs and the abilities and needs of jobholders. We provide such an analysis in this paper. We begin with a review of issues in person-environment fit theory that are particularly germane to work behavior and with an overview of job characteristics theory. Then we explore the potential costs and benefits of person-job fit using concepts from the two theoretical approaches. Next we examine ways that job characteristics and personal attributes Requests for reprints should be sent to Carol T. Kulik, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Schenley Park, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. 278 oool-8791/87 $3.00 Copyright All rights
0 1987 by Academic Press, Inc. of reproduction in any form reserved.
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
279
can influence one another over time. The paper ends with an exploration of the implications of person-environment fit theory (see Caplan, 1983, for a review), which has dealt with broad issues of how the characteristics of the person and the environment interact to affect well-being. Generally, conditions of “fit” between the person and the environment are predicted to result in high performance, satisfaction, and low stress. Alternatively, a lack of fit is likely to result in decreased performance, dissatisfaction, and high stress (Pervin, 1968). Two distinct forms of person-environment fit have been considered (French, Rodgers, & Cobb, 1974). First, there is the fit between the person’s needs and values and the opportunities provided by the environment in which he or she operates. For example, Pervin (1967) found that the degree of fit between the amount of structure provided by an academic setting and the student’s need for structure predicted satisfaction with college life. Second, there is the fit between the demands of the environment and the abilities of the person to meet those demands. For example, work environments vary in the amounts and kinds of work they require, and employees differ in their ability to meet those requirements. As Caplan (1983) points out, these two types of person-environment fit are not necessarily compatible. Reducing the demands of the environment in order to provide a better match with the person’s abilities may result in a lessened capacity of that environment to satisfy the person’s needs for growth and development. Although early models of person-environment fit described a static relationship between person and environment characteristics (Pervin, 1967; Harrison, 1978), more recent models have considered the ongoing, reciprocal impact that these two sets of variables may have on one another (Caplan, 1983, Kohn & Schooler, 1982). For example, French et al. (1974) suggested that an individual may respond to a perceived person-environment misfit either by acting on the environment characteristics (environmental mastery) or by changing his or her own characteristics (adaptation). Further, various defense mechanisms (e.g., cognitive distortion) are available for altering perceived person and environment characteristics without making objective changes in either. Finally, movement toward closer person-environment fit may be initiated by the environment. For example, a student with academic problems may be transferred to a school where he or she is more likely to be successful. Person-environment fit theorists have increasingly begun to consider the importance of congruence within work environments (e.g., Hesketh & Shouksmith, 1986). The approach to be focused on in this paper is job characteristics theory (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980), an approach which emphasizes the importance of a fit between characteristics of the job and characteristics of the jobholder. When a match is present, job characteristics theory predicts desirable outcomes
280
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
CORE JOB CHARACTERISTICS
Skill variety Task identity Task significance
Autonomy
l
AND HACKMAN
CRITICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES
EXpelitWZd meaningfulness of the work
/I--
.
Feedback from job
OUTCOMES
High internal work motivation 7
EXperienced responsibility for O”tcomeS of the work
-
l
Knowledge of the actual results of the work activities J
High “gmwth satisfaction High general job satisfaction High work effectiveness
t
FIG. 1. The job characteristics model. (From J. R. Hackman & G. R. Oldham, Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980, p. 90.)
for both the employee and the organization. The theory is described in detail below. JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY The basic job characteristics model is presented in Fig. 1. At the most general level, five “core” job dimensions are seen as prompting three psychological states which, in turn, lead to a number of beneficial personal and work outcomes. The links between the job dimensions and the psychological states, and beween the psychological states and the outcomes, are shown as moderated by three individual difference variables. Job characteristics theory posits that all three of the psychological states must be experienced by an individual if desirable outcomes are to emerge. First, the person must experience the work as meaningful. That is, the individual must feel that the work he or she does is generally worthwhile, valuable, or important by some system of values he or she accepts. Second, the individual must experience personal responsibility for work outcomes. The individual must feel personally accountable for the results of the work he or she does. Finally, the person must have knowledge of the results of his or her work. That is, the individual must know and understand, on a continuous basis, how effectively he or she
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
281
is performing the job. If any one of these three states is not present, motivation and satisfaction will be attenuated. Also shown in Fig. 1 are several outcome variables that are predicted to result when the psychological states are present. First and most important is internal motivation. Internal motivation exists when good performance is an occasion for self-reward and poor performance prompts unhappy feelings. Other predicted outcomes include growth satisfaction (a feeling that one is learning and growing personally or professionally at work), general job satisfaction, and work effectiveness. In essence, the theory predicts that when jobholders find their work meaningful, experience personal responsibility for work outcomes, and have regular, trustworthy data about how they are doing, then they will both perform well and feel good about it. The three psychological states are, by definition, internal to persons and therefore not measurable properties of jobs. Research suggests five specific job characteristics that foster the psychological states and, through them, enhance work outcomes (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Turner & Lawrence, 1965). Of the five characteristics of jobs shown in Fig. 1, three characteristics are expected to contribute to the experienced meaningfulness of the work, one to experienced responsibility, and one to knowledge of results. Characteristics
of the Job
The three characteristics of jobs that are especially powerful in influencing the experienced meaningfulness of work are (1) skill variety, (2) task identity, and (3) task significance. Skill variety. The degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities in carrying out the work, involving the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person. Task identity. The degree to which the job requires completion of a whole, identifiable piece of work-that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome. Task significance. The degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the lives of other people, whether those people are in the immediate organization or in the world at large. The characteristic that leads to feelings of personal responsibility for work outcomes is autonomy. Autonomy. The degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out. Finally, knowledge of results of one’s work is affected directly by the amount of feedback one receives from doing the work. Job feedback. The degree to which carrying out the work activities
282
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
AND HACKMAN
required by the job provides the individual with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of his or her performance. Because a job can be high on one or more of the five characteristics described above and simultaneously quite low on others, it is useful to consider the standing of a job on each of the characteristics. Nevertheless, it also can be informative to combine the five characteristics into a single index that reflects the overall potential of the job environment to foster motivation and satisfaction on the part of jobholders. A job high in motivating potential must be high on at least one of the three characteristics that prompt experienced meaningfulness, and high on both autonomy and job feedback as well, thereby creating conditions that foster all three of the critical psychological states. A job with either low autonomy or low feedback will directly attenuate the overall motivating potential of the work. This is because the model requires that both experienced responsibility and knowledge of results be present if desirable outcomes are to emerge, and autonomy and feedback, respectively, are the characteristics that prompt those two psychological states. A low standing on one of the three characteristics that contribute to experienced meaningfulness, on the other hand, cannot by itself seriously compromise the overall motivating potential of a job. This is because the other two characteristics that contribute to experienced meaningfulness can compensate to some extent for one or even two of these job characteristics. Characteristics of the Jobholder Job characteristics theory explicitly recognizes that not all employees will respond positively to a job high in motivating potential. As shown in Fig. 1, the theory identifies three characteristics of people as especially important in determining a “fit” between a job’s motivating potential and the jobholder. First, employees must have sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the work effectively (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). For jobs high in motivating potential, employees with sutlicient knowledge and skill to perform well will experience positive feelings as a result of their work activities. The reason is that a motivating job “counts” for people, and doing it well can be an occasion for significant self-reward. However, when individuals with inadequate knowledge and skill work on a highly motivating job they are likely to experience a good deal of frustration and unhappiness at work, because the job is important to them and yet they are unable to perform it effectively. Rather than continually accept the pain of failing at something that is experienced as important, such individuals may opt to withdraw from the job-either behaviorally, by changing jobs, or psychologically, by convincing themselves that in fact they do not care about the work. Either outcome is an undesirable state of affairs both for the individual and the organization.
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
283
When a job is low in motivating potential, it does not offer an opportunity for the three psychological states to be experienced at work. Consequently, employees are likely to experience low internal work motivation regardless of their level of knowledge and skill. Second, psychological needs can be critical in determining how vigorously a person will respond to a job high in motivating potential (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Those people with strong needs for personal growth and self-direction at work are most likely to appreciate and respond enthusiastically to the opportunities for personal accomplishment provided by a job high in motivating potential. Individuals who have relatively low growth need strength may be less eager to exploit those opportunities. These individuals may not recognize the opportunities for growth provided by the job, or they may experience a complex, challenging job as threatening and balk at being “pushed” or stretched too far by the work. Even employees with high growth needs will experience low internal work motivation on jobs that are low in motivating potential, since such jobs do not provide opportunities for the three psychological states to be experienced at work. Although a match between a job low in motivating potential and a jobholder with low growth needs avoids the possibility of “overstretching” the jobholder, this type of fit is not predicted to result in the positive outcomes (e.g., internal work motivation and growth satisfaction) specified by job characteristics theory. Finally, job characteristics theory predicts that employees’ reactions to jobs with high motivating potential are also affected by their satisfaction with aspects of the work context (e.g., pay, job security, co-workers, and managers) (Oldham, Hackman, & Pearce, 1976). When employees are not satisfied with one or more of these contextual factors, their ability to respond positively to a job high in motivating potential may be severely diminished. The reason is that active dissatisfaction with such contextual factors distracts jobholders’ attention from the work itself and orients their energy instead toward coping with the experienced problems. Only when such problems are resolved and people become relatively satisfied with the work context are they able to experience, appreciate, and respond to the inherent richness of well-designed jobs. In summary, only people who are sufficiently competent to perform the work, desirous of growth satisfactions at work, and relatively satisfied with the work context are predicted to prosper on work that is high in motivating potential. Individuals who have low growth needs, are dissatisfied with the work context, or have inadequate knowledge and skills will not experience the positive outcomes predicted by job characteristics theory.
284
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
AND HACKMAN
MEASUREMENT OF JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY An important issue in the person-environment fit literature that is equally germane to the assessment of job characteristics is whether the person and environment components are best measured objectively or subjectively. Although it may be theoretically possible to devise objective measures of personal attributes and environment characteristics, a person’s responses to an environment are likely to be based mainly on his or her perceptions of the degree of fit (French & Caplan, 1972). Such perceptions cannot be assumed to be objectively accurate. In fact, distortion of reality is one way that individuals sometimes deal with the presence of objective stressors in the environment (e.g., Lazarus, 1979). The measurement of subjective perceptions of fit, however, presents a considerable methodological challenge. Traditional response scales, for example, often ask respondents to judge “how much” constitutes “a great deal” of a particular characteristic. Such judgments involve a comparison of the observed characteristics of the person and the environment to some unknown, unspecified standard. Further, the judgments of person and environment characteristics may contaminate one another. For example, a moderate amount of responsibility for others, in an absolute sense, may be perceived as quite high by a person with little ability to assume such responsibility. The same amount of objective responsibility may be perceived as quite low by a person with greater ability in this area. Although job characteristics theory is based on research that employed objective means of assessing task attributes (Turner & Lawrence, 1965), research on the theory typically has employed subjective measuresobtained by asking jobholders to complete the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS). The JDS (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Kulik & Oldham, in press) was constructed to provide separate measures of each major class of variables in job characteristics theory. Specifically, the JDS assessesrespondents’ perceptions of the job characteristics, their growth needs, their interna! work motivation, and their satisfaction in several domains. Two concepts in the theory are not assessedby the JDS: The level of employee knowledge and skill, and employee work effectiveness. These factors are idiosyncratic to particular work settings, and therefore defy meaningful measurement across jobs and organizations. In addition to the JDS, a companion instrument, the Job Rating Form (JRF) (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1980),was developed to obtain measures of the job characteristics from individuals who do not themselves work on the focal job (e.g., supervisors or outside observers). The JRF has a format nearly identical to that of the JDS. Use of both the JDS and the JRF allows researchers to “triangulate” the properties of a given
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
285
job, using subjective ratings made by individuals who may have different perspectives on the job. A number of studies have examined associations between ratings of job characteristics made by incumbents and those made by observers, thereby providing an indirect test of the “objectivity” of employee ratings. A recent meta-analysis of this literature found a median correlation of .63 between the assessment of jobs made by job incumbents and those made by nonincumbents (i.e., peers, managers, or observers) (Fried & Ferris, 1987). Research also has shown that observers’ ratings of job characteristics explain about as much variance in incumbents’ reactions to the work (e.g., their satisfaction and internal motivation) as do ratings made by incumbents themselves (Jenkins, Glick, & Gupta, 1983; Oldham et al., 1976; Stone & Porter, 1978). In all, these results suggest that employees are able to provide generally accurate assessments of the characteristics of their jobs. RESEARCH ON JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY In research on job characteristics theory, the overall motivating potential of a job typically has been computed using the formula suggested by Hackman and Oldham (1976). This formula yields a single score, called the motivating potential score (MPS). MPS is an index of the degree to which the standing of a job on the five core dimensions approximates the configuration specified by the theory as prompting the greatest degree of jobholder motivation and satisfaction. In general, research has shown that high MPS jobs are associated with the positive outcomes specified in the theory (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Fried and Ferris shows that MPS is strongly associated with employee job satisfaction (7 = .56), employee satisfaction with growth opportunities at work (P = .68), and employee internal motivation (7 = .49) (Fried & Ferris, 1987). The association between MPS and measures of work effectiveness was weaker (P = .20), although also in the direction specified by the model. Note, however, that job characteristics theory predicts that not everyone will respond equally well to a job with high motivating potential. In particular, the theory specifies that employees who have high needs for growth, who possess adequate knowledge and skills, and who are satisfied with the work context, will be best “fit” to high MPS jobs. Most research on the fit between job characteristics and jobholder characteristics has focused on individuals’ needs for growth. Recent meta-analyses (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher et al., 1985) have concluded that individuals with high growth needs do respond more positively to jobs with high motivating potential than individuals with low growth need strength. For example, after correcting for measurement unreliability, Loher et al. (1985) demonstrated that the average correlation between
286
KULIK,
OLDHAM, AND HACKMAN
motivating potential and job satisfaction was .68 for individuals with high needs for growth, while the correlation between motivating potential and satisfaction was only .38 for individuals with low growth needs. And Fried and Ferris (1987) found that the average correlation between MPS and performance was .45 for high growth need employees, compared to a correlation of .14 for employees with low growth needs. These results suggest that growth need strength does moderate the relationship between job characteristics and theory-specified outcomes. However, the positive associations between MPS and outcomes for individuals with low growth need strength indicate that even these individuals can respond positively to jobs which are high on the core job dimensions. Further, Loher et al. (1985) report that a large amount of variance in the satisfaction of low growth need strength individuals can not be explained by the job characteristics alone. This suggests that job characteristics theory may not adequately specify conditions of “fit” for individuals with low needs for growth. The consequences of a fit between job characteristics and employee knowledge and skill have not been systematically tested in relation to job characteristics theory. Consequently, it is still unknown whether employee knowledge and skill will determine how employees will respond to a job’s motivating potential. In addition, relatively little research has focused on the fit between job characteristics and employee context satisfactions (Dunham, Pierce, & Newstrom, 1983). Although a few studies (e.g., Oldham, 1976; Oldham et al., 1976; Orpen, 1979) did find differences between high and low context satisfaction groups in responses to jobs with high motivating potential, these differences were small and largely nonsignificant. Moreover, recent studies (e.g., Abdel-Halim, 1979;Bottger & Chew, 1986;Champoux, 1981) have found effects of context satisfaction that are inconsistent with the predictions of job characteristics theory-specifically, that individuals with low context satisfaction exhibited stronger relations between the job characteristics and outcome measures than did individuals who were highly satisfied with the work context. The mixed results regarding context satisfaction suggest that this variable’s role in determining employee reactions to a job’s motivating potential is not adequately specified in job characteristics theory. Given this, we choose to limit our discussion of this variable in subsequent pages. In summary, the research regarding job characteristics theory supports the idea that a fit between high growth need strength individuals and high motivating potential jobs results in positive personal and organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and work effectiveness). However, the question of what constitutes “fit” for individuals with low needs for growth is equivocal. Moreover, the consequences of a fit between the characteristics of jobs and individuals’ knowledge and skills are as yet
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
287
unknown, and context satisfaction appears not to moderate the job characteristics-outcome relationship. THE ONGOING EFFECTS OF THE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL Like other models of person-environment fit (Pervin, 1967; Harrison, 1978), job characteristics theory views job characteristics and individual characteristics as two sets of independent constructs that do not necessarily influence one another. However, recent research suggests that characteristics of the environment do exert a long-term influence on the characteristics of people operating in that environment. Specifically, Kohn and Schooler (1982) have shown that, over the long term, self-directed work leads both to increased intellectual flexibility (i.e., the individual’s ability to deal with complex cognitive problems that require weighing alternative sides of an issue) and to a stronger preference for self-directed activities. In research more closely associated with job characteristics theory, Brousseau (1978) has demonstrated that the motivating potential of jobs is associated with changes in two personality characteristics (active orientation and freedom from depression). This research suggests that the effect of job characteristics is not limited to the personal and work outcomes included in job characteristics theory, but that they also can affect jobholder personality over the long term. In the paragraphs to follow, we examine the impact of the work environment in detail, focusing on the two attributes of individuals specifically addressed by job characteristics theory: knowledge and skill, and growth need strength. The Efsects of the Work Environment on Knowledge and Skill Job characteristics theory suggests that only individuals with sufficient knowledge and skill will respond positively to jobs high in motivating potential. The theory does not specifically address the possibility that an employee’s knowledge and skill might be shaped by the job on which he or she works. Given the research by Kohn and Schooler described above, there is reason to believe that, over time, the characteristics of jobs might have a substantial impact on incumbents’ talents. Specifically, individuals who work on complex, challenging jobs might discover that they need new knowledge or skills to accomplish the work-and gradually acquire what they need in the course of doing the work. If, for example, a job required dealing with clients on a regular basis, an employee might gradually hone his or her skills in managing interpersonal relations. Thus, working on a complex job can have benefits for the jobholder independent of his or her present level of knowledge and skill. Although people who initially are not competent enough to perform high-MPS jobs
288
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
AND HACKMAN
well might experience unhappiness and frustration at first, they still could benefit in the long term as new knowledge and skills are acquired. This should improve the match between the person and his or her present job (thus creating the conditions for internal motivation) and also might be transferable to other jobs in which the employee has an interest. Further, a person who develops skills and abilities at work, particularly social and organizational skills, might be able to use those skills to facilitate his or her involvement in nonwork activities (Meissner, 1971). On the other hand, an employee who is mismatched to a job such that the job does not utilize his or her existing skiIls and abilities may eventually experience a deterioration of talent. For example, an employee who is regularly told how to organize the day’s tasks may later be unable to establish his or her owlz priority system for approaching new work. Further, the frustration of being unable to use skills and abilities at work may eventually lead to a state of “learned helplessness” (Wortman & Brehm, 1975). That is, the jobholder may put less and less of his or her effort and mental energy into the job, and require more and more direction and supervision even to continue performing at the same level. This outcome can be costly both to the employee due to a loss of skills, and to the organization because of the increased cost of supervision and control. To date, the relationship between job characteristics and employee knowledge and skill has not received much research attention. As noted earlier in this paper, there is a need for better understanding of how knowledge and skill moderate the job characteristic-outcome relationship. The research cited in this section suggeststhat the long-term consequences of the fit between job demands and employee talents also warrants attention. Specifically, such research might examine the consequences of the work environment on the individual’s future ability to function effectively in both work and nonwork spheres. The Effects of the Work Environment on Growth Need Strength Growth need strength, like knowledge and skill, is specified in job characteristics theory as conceptually independent of job characteristics. Indeed, static correlations between measures of growth need strength and the core job dimensions are near zero (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Yet the research by Kohn and Schooler and by Brousseau suggests that over time jobholders’ needs are quite likely to be affected by properties of the jobs on which they work. Specifically, when someone is “understretched” by his or her job (i.e., when the job is too low in motivating potential to effectively satisfy the individual’s need for growth), growth need strength may gradually weaken in response to the chronic frustration the person experiences. On the other hand, when an individual is consistently “overstretched” by his or her work (i.e., when the challenges
PE FIT AND
WORK
DESIGN
289
presented by a job are far greater than those the individual seeks), a state of personal anxiety may result, followed by psychological or behavioral withdrawal. Finally, when the work moderately “stretches” the individual, the strength of his or her growth needs may increase over time, for at least as long as the work continues to provide the person with opportunities to satisfy those needs. Unfortunately, few studies have tested empirically the possiblities laid out above-and those that have been conducted have produced equivocal results (e.g., Hackman, Pearce, & Wolfe, 1978;Hall, Rabinowitz, Goodale, & Morgan, 1978; Orpen, 1979). There are at least two explanations for these results. One is that it takes long and continuous exposure to jobs before needs change, and the studies conducted have not included a long enough time frame to observe such changes. For example, the Hall et al. (1978) study examined changes in employee growth need strength over a S-month period, while the Hackman et al. (1978) study used a 6month interval. If growth need strength is a relatively stable personal characteristic, incremental changes in growth needs may be observable only over a relatively long interval. An alternative possibility is that the effects of jobs on needs are contingent on the level of employees’ needs. Individuals with very low or very high growth need strength may not respond to jobs with changes in their needs for growth, especially if those need states are stable features of the person’s make-up. Even radical changes in job characteristics (changes that significantly over- or understretch the person) may be more likely to result in the person leaving the job or psychologically withdrawing from it than in changes in growth need strength. On the other hand, when employees’ needs are in the “middle range” they may be relatively unstable and likely to respond to the characteristics of jobs. Additional research is required to explore these possibilities. Especially useful would be research that explicitly examines the conditions under which growth needs are and are not shaped by the work environment. The Consequences of Growth Need-Job Characteristic Fit To this point we have discussed only the circumstances in which a mismatch exists between the person and work environment. According to job characteristics theory, a match between individual needs and job characteristics can occur in two very different ways: low growth need strength and a low-MPA job, or high growth need strength and a highMPS job. The consequences of these two types of match are likely to be very different, in both the short and long term. When an individual with low growth need strength has a job low in motivating potential, the person-job relationship is stable. The job does not challenge the person, the person does not seek challenge from the job, and therefore there is little tension in the situation or incentive for
290
KULIK,
OLDHAM, AND HACKMAN
change. Although there may be problems in the work relationship (having to do with compensation or supervision, for example), they would not stem from the demands or opportunities of the work itself. The person should have no significant difficulty in dealing with the demands of the work, nor experience dissatisfaction with it. For this type of person-job match, we would not expect to observe either superb work performance or changes in individual growth need strength as a consequence of working on the job over the long term. The other type of person-job fit specified by job characteristics theory, when a person with strong growth needs works on a job high in motivating potential, is richer in implication. The basic prediction, of course, is for a positive state of affairs for both the person and the organization: the work provides growth opportunities for the individual that he or she finds agreeable and engaging. Satisfaction and productivity should be high under these conditions, predictions that research cited earlier in this paper tends to confirm. This type of fit can become fraught with problems, however, if over the long term the person becomes so intensely involved in and committed to the work that other aspects of his or her life are negatively affected. As Staw and Oldham (1978)have noted, organizations that create conditions that maximize work outcomes may risk jobholders’ mental health, a concern that applies directly to the high-MPS/high growth need strength match. Moreover, Near, Rice, and Hunt (1980) have cautioned that involving work activities can compromise the time and energy individuals have for other pursuits. As a person invests more and more of his or her self into the work, there will be less energy available for nonwork activities, potentially resulting in a deterioration of relationships with family and friends. Little presently is known about the extent or severity of these problems, or how individuals go about dealing with them once they are encountered. The matter is pressing, given the increasing interest these days in the creation of high-involvement, high-commitment work organizations (Walton, 1986), and anecdotal reports from some of those enterprises that appear to confirm the concerns articulated above. For these reasons, research on the long-term consequences of the seemingly advantageous fit between challenging jobs and growth-oriented individuals would seem well worthwhile. Changing Jobs ro Improve Person-Environment
Fir Thus far we have discussed the effects of various kinds of fit and misfit between job characteristics and employee characteristics. What can be done to improve things for organizations and jobholders when a poor fit exists? When the problem is insufficient knowledge or skill, then training presents itself as a relatively straightforward change strategy. But when
PE FIT AND WORK
DESIGN
291
the mismatch stems from the fact that the person is overqualified for the job, or seeks more opportunities for growth than the job provides, then person-oriented interventions such as training may be of little use. In these circumstances a more appropriate strategy is to consider redesigning the job so that it better taps the talents and engages the needs of the jobholder. Several methods for accomplishing this are explored below. One possibility is for organization managers to initiate and install changes in the design of a given job or group of jobs. An organizational diagnosis, involving administering the JDS or conducting interviews with job incumbents, can be used to identify which of the five core job characteristics are particularly problematic. An organizational intervention then can be directed toward improving the job’s standing on those dimensions. For example, many jobs are designed such that individuals work on fragmented subparts of an overall process. These fractionalized tasks sometimes can be recombined to form new and larger modules of work. When tasks are combined, all the tasks required to complete a given piece of work are performed by one person, rather than by a series of individuals who do separate, small parts of the job. This invariably leads to an increase in skill variety. Moreover, task identity may also improve because the employee is now better able to see how his or her work contributes to the larger product or service. The tasks involved in providing nursing care to hospitalized patients, for example, might be combined so that each nurse would have responsibility for many aspects of the care and treatment of a given set of patients. This would contrast with a design for nursing work in which each nurse is responsible for only one or two tasks for a larger number of patients. Similarly, the job of a toaster assembler might be designed so that each employee completes a whole toaster from beginning to end, rather than perform one small operation (such as attaching the line cord) and passing the toaster on to another employee who does another small operation. When a job involves client relationships, one way to redesign the job is to put the jobholder in direct contact with those clients and give him or her continuing responsibility for managing relationships with them. By enabling employees to establish direct relationships with the clients affected by their work, several of the core job characteristics may be affected. Feedback may increase because of additional opportunities for individuals to obtain direct and immediate praise or criticism of their work from persons who receive the work. Skill variety may increase because of the need to exercise interpersonal skills in maintaining the client relationship as well as technical skills in completing the task itself. And autonomy may increase because individuals have personal responsibility for deciding how to manage their relationships with the clients.
292
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
AND HACKMAN
A top-down, management-initiated intervention can be both efficient and effective in restructuring jobs to improve person-job fit. Yet there also are disadvantages to this approach. Such interventions may negatively affect some employees by placing on them demands that exceed their desires for growth and challenge at work, or their ability to meet those demands satisfactorily. For such individuals-perhaps individuals with low growth needs and moderate task-relevant knowledge and skill-a full-blown work redesign intervention might prove to be too much at one time. One immediate ditficulty in designing jobs for low growth need individuals is the problem of distinguishing between individuals who truly have low needs for growth at work and those who only appear to have low growth need strength because of a constraining work environment. In some cases, it may be that a low expressed need for growth (e.g., on the JDS scale measuring growth need strength) may actually be diagnostic of the adaptation an individual has made to a work environment that provides few real opportunities for personal responsibility and growth. For such individuals, it probably is advisable to introduce enriching changes into the work gradually, so they can adjust slowly to the increasing levels of challenge in the job. For example, a job enrichment program could begin by focusing on one or two of the job characteristics instead of all five at one time. Clearly, this type of enrichment program is more difficult to implement than a “broadside” redesign, because it requires both constant monitoring of fit between the person and the work, and the introduction of individualized changes that are simultaneously large enough to make a real difference in the work and small enough to be accommodated to without undue duress by the jobholder. Another strategy for work redesign is a participative change process, in which jobholders are actively involved in determining what changes will be made in their jobs to improve the match with their own needs and skills. Since employees are quite knowledgeable about the content of their jobs (generally more so than their managers), they may be able to suggest ways of redesigning the work that are not immediately apparent to supervisors or observers. Moreover, participating in the redesign process should foster commitment to the entire work redesign program. Research suggests that participative approaches to work redesign are often particularly effective in improving employee satisfaction with the newly designed job (Griffeth, 1985; Seeborg, 1978). If a participative approach to redesign were used, the redesign process might even serve to deenrich jobs to provide a better fit for jobholders who have low needs for growth or limited task-relevant knowledge and skill. Finally, employees may on occasion redesign their jobs on their own initiative-either with or without management assent and cooperation. Although this phenomenon has not been systematically researched, there
PE FIT AND WORK
DESIGN
293
are numerous anecdotal reports of jobholders responding to a poor personjob fit by changing their jobs to achieve higher congruence between what they do at work and their own skills and needs. Consider, for example, individuals with high growth needs who are inappropriately matched to simple, routinized jobs. It would not be surprising to observe such persons attempting to improve their fit with the work situation by informally taking on responsibilities that go beyond their formal job description. An employee in a manufacturing organization, for example, might choose to perform his or her own quality check before passing a product on to the quality control inspector in the usual manner. Or a receptionist might discuss a company product with a client before showing the client into the sales office. Not only are these new activities likely to result in a better fit between the person and the work environment, but the process of discovering ways to satisfy growth needs on the job may itself be challenging. The same possibility exists for employees with knowledge and skills which are not utilized in the existing job. Such employees may try to expand the job in order to use these skills at work. For example, a secretary with editorial experience might make suggestions about wording changes, or prepare rough drafts of reports at his or her own initiative, in addition to the usual work of performing typing tasks and correcting others’ spelling mistakes. Over time, such self-initiated changes may become accepted by all as part of the person’s contributions to the organization, and a significant redesign of the work will have been accomplished without anyone actually executing a planned change program. Despite the considerable body of scholarly research on the theoretical propositions in job characteristics theory, few studies have addressed the risks and benefits of alternative methods of designing and implementing job changes. Particularly worthy of study are the dynamics and effects of nontraditional means of changing jobs-that is, ways of getting jobs changed that do not rely on traditional top-down, management-initiated changes. Also pressing is a need for better understanding of how the need states of jobholders interact with job change strategies, an undertaking that will require the development of means for assessing needs that minimizes the degree to which need measures are contaminated by individuals’ prior work experiences. CONCLUSIONS
Job characteristics theory suggests that individuals who are sufficiently competent to perform the work, and who are desirous of growth satisfaction at work, will respond most positively to jobs high in motivating potential (i.e., jobs that are highly rated on the five core dimensions). Research has provided some support for the importance of matching individuals with high growth needs to jobs that provide opportunities for meeting
294
KULIK,
OLDHAM,
AND HACKMAN
those needs. However, the importance of matching individual abilities and skills to the job environment has not been systematically addressed in relation to job characteristics theory. Throughout this paper, we have attempted to identify a number of research issues regarding work environment-person fit that warrant attention. Unfortunately, research in the work design area currently is unable to address these issues, for several reasons. First, research has focused almost exclusively on the outcome variables explicitly included in job characteristics theory (internal motivation, satisfaction, and work effectiveness). While these variables certainly are important, reliance on them can result in a failure to consider the broader implications of person-work environment congruence and incongruence. For example, we have suggested that certain combinations of person and job characteristics may have an impact on nonwork variables, such as family relations. Further, research has failed to consider the possible negative consequences of situations which have positive outcomes when viewed from the organization’s perspective (Staw & Oldham, 1978). Second, existing methods of assessingand improving work environmentperson fit are flawed and incomplete. While the Job Diagnostic Survey provides a reasonable means of assessing perceived job characteristics, there is reason for concern about the self-report strategy used in that instrument for assessing growth need strength. Far more appropriate for research on person-job fit would be a measure that assessed individuals’ capacity for growth, rather than their experienced need for it on the job. Clinical methods, such as projective tests and behavioral observation, might be useful for this purpose. Further, we need better understanding of the standards that individuals use in assessing and reacting to their jobs. Recent work in the area of comparison theory (Oldham, Kulik, Ambrose, Stepina, & Brand, 1986; Oldham, Kulik, Stepina, & Ambrose, 1986; Oldham et al., 1982) has provided a number of leads toward identification of the referents that people actually use in coming to terms with their jobs and their work experiences. Finally, our models of person-environment fit need to be elaborated more thoroughly, to consider possible interactions between individuals’ needs and abilities that influence their reactions to a work environment. Most existing models that address the fit between a person and his or her work (including job characteristics theory) are static-they do not address, or provide the tools for addressing, the ongoing, reciprocal influences of work and person characteristics on each other. The development of such models, which will require longitudinal studies of person-job relationships, may be the most pressing of all the research needs we have identified in this paper.
PE FIT AND WORK DESIGN
295
REFERENCES Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1979). Individual and interpersonal moderators of employee reactions to job characteristics: A reexamination. Personnel Psychology, 32, 121-137. Bottger, P. C., & Chew, I. K. (1986). The job characteristics model and growth satisfaction: Main effects of assimilation of work experience and context satisfaction. Human Relations,
39, 575-594.
Brousseau, K. R. (1978). Personality and job experience. Organizational Human Peflormance,
Behavior
and
22, 235-252.
Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Stress research. New York: Wiley. Champoux, J. E. (1981).The moderating effect of work context satisfactions on the curvilinear relationship between job scope and affective response. Human Relations, 34, 503515. Dunham, R. B., Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1983). Job context and job content: A conceptual perspective. Journal of Management, 9, 187-202. French, J. R. P., Jr., & Caplan, R. D. (1972). Organizational stress and individual strain. In A. Marrow (Ed.), The failure of success. New York: AMACOM. French, J. R. P., Jr., Rodgers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment fit. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation. New York: Basic Books. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322. Griffeth, R. W. (1985). Moderation of the effects of job enrichment by participation: A longitudinal field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 73-93. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied
Psychology
Monograph,
55, 259-286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L., & Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance,
21, 289-304.
Hall, D. T., Rabinowitz, S., Goodale, J. G., & Morgan, M. A. (1978). Effects of top down departmental and job change upon perceived employee behavior and attitudes: A natural field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 62-72. Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Stress at work. New York: Wiley. Hesketh, B., & Shouksmith, G. (1986). Job and non-job activities, job satisfaction and mental health among veterinarians. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7, 325-339. Jenkins, G. D., Glick, W. H., & Gupta, N. (1983). Job characteristics and employee responses. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 43, 164-168. Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1982).Job conditions and personality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal effects. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1257-1286. Kulik, C. T., & Oldham, G. R. (in press). The Job Diagnostic Survey. In S. Gael (Ed.), Job analysis handbook. New York: Wiley. Lazarus, R. S. (1979, November). Positive denial: The case for not facing reality. Psychology Today, pp. 44-60. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis
KULIK,
296
OLDHAM, AND HACKMAN
of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 280-289. Meissner, M. (1971). The long arm of the job: A study of work and leisure. Industrial Relations, 10, 239-260. Near, J. P., Rice, R. W., & Hunt, R. G. (1980). The relationship between work and nonwork domains: A review of empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 5, 415-430. Oldham, G. R. (1976). Job characteristics and internal motivation: The moderating effect of interpersonal and individual variables. Human Relations, 29, 559-569. Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 395-403. Oldham, Cl. R., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., Stepina, L. P., & Brand, J. F. (1986). Relations between job facet comparisons and employee reactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 28-47. Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., Stepina, L. P., & Ambrose, M. L. (1986). Relations between situational factors and the comparative referents used by employees. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 599-608. Oldham, G. R., Nottenburg, G., Kassner, M. K., Ferris, G., Fedor, D., & Masters, M. (1982). The selection and consequences of job comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Pet$ormance, 29, 84-l 11. Orpen, C. (1979). The effects of job enrichment on employee satisfaction, motivation, involvement, and performance: A field experiment. Human Relations, 32, 189-217. Pervin, L. A. (1967). Satisfaction and perceived self-environment similarity: A semantic differential study of student-college interaction. Journal of Personality, 35, 623-634. Pervin, L. A. (1%8). Performance and satisfaction as a function of individual-environment fit. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 56-68. Seeborg, I. S. (1978). The influence of employee participation in job redesign. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 87-98. Staw, B. M., & Oldham, G. R. (1978). Reconsidering our dependent variables: A critique and empirical study. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 539-559. Stone, E. F., 62Porter, L. W. (1978). On the use of incumbent-supplied job characteristics data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 751-758. Turner, A. N., & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker. Boston: Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment: Transforming workforce management in the United States. In K. B. Clark, R. H. Hayes, & C. Lorenz (Eds.), The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity-technology dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wortman, C. B., & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, Vol. 8. New York: Free Press.
