Masters level assignment

Work, organization, and job design are three distinct but closely associated processes that establish what work is done in organizations and how it is done. Work design deals with the ways in which things are done in the work system of a business by teams and individuals. Organization design is concerned with deciding how organizations should be structured. Job design is about establishing what people in individual jobs or roles are there to do. Although these three activities are dealt with separately in this chapter they share one purpose – to ensure that the organization’s work systems and structure operate effectively, make the best use of people in their jobs and roles and take account of the needs of people at work.

In theory, to achieve that purpose, work, organization and job design function sequentially. The work system is designed to meet the specific needs of the business and to deliver value to its customers or clients. An organization structure or system (not all organizations are rigidly structured) has to be developed to enable the work system to operate. The structure is made up of jobs or roles (there is a distinction, which will be explained later) that have to be designed in ways that will maximize the extent to which they can be carried out effectively and provide intrinsic motivation, ie motivation from the work itself.

In practice, the processes involved can run concurrently – the work system will involve deciding how the work should be organized, and both the work system and organization design processes will define what sort of jobs or roles are required. At the same time, job design considerations will affect how the work is organized and how the work system functions. This chapter deals with each aspect of design separately, but it should be remembered that the processes interlink and overlap.

Work design

Work design is the creation of systems of work and a working environment that enhance organizational effectiveness and productivity, ensure that the organization becomes ‘a great place in which to work’ and are conducive to the health, safety and well-being of employees. Work involves the exertion of effort and the application of knowledge and skills to achieve a purpose. Systems of work are the combined processes, methods and techniques used to get work done. The work environment comprises the design of jobs, working conditions and the ways in which people are treated at work by their managers and co-workers as well as the work system. Work design is closely associated with organization and job design in that the latter is conducted within the context of the system of work and the work environment.

To understand the meaning of work design it is necessary first to appreciate what is happening to the world of work and next to review its history.

The key changes in the contextual and external environment surrounding the world of work have been set out clearly by Parker et al (2001). They are:

· a shift away from large-scale industrial production, with a dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs and rise in service work;

· partly as a consequence of this, an increase in customer-facing roles involving some form of emotional behaviour – the requirement for employees to express positive emotions in the way in which they interact with customers;

· significant shifts in the demographics of the workforce in the shape of an increased proportion of women, greater ethnic diversity, more educated employees and an ageing workforce;

· growth in the number of employees engaged in ‘knowledge work’ – for example, professional services and new product and service development;

· the requirement for a greater variety of products and services and flexibility and agility in responding to customer needs and increased global competition;

· developments in technology affecting the degree to which jobs are involved in IT and become dependent on it;

· shifts from traditional, office or factory-based working to more flexible alternatives, including homeworking;

· a significant increase in the number of employers that an individual employee expects to work for during his or her career.

Work design began with the concept of the division of labour originated by Adam Smith (1776). Much later came ‘Taylorism’, the scientific management movement pioneered by Taylor (1911), which was based on the belief that the most efficient way to do tasks was to remove the responsibility for how to do the work from the individual employee to engineers or managers. The next step was ‘Fordism’, the moving assembly line introduced by Henry Ford in 1914. Thereafter, the practice of work simplification became embedded in organizations and to a large extent still exists.

The first move away from this situation was provided by the concept of job enrichment popularized by Herzberg (1968: 83), who referred to it as ‘vertical job loading’. His definition of the principles and motivators involved is set out in Table 11.1. This was reinforced by job design theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1974).

SOURCE: Herzberg (1968: 83)

More recently, the notion of ‘smart working’ has emerged. Essentially, this means managing the work environment in order to release employees’ energy and drive business performance. Smart working, as described in detail later, has been the subject of extensive research conducted by the CIPD (2008).

However, before examining the notion of smart working it is necessary to remember that it takes place within the system of work, and approaches to work system design are therefore examined first.

A system is a set of practices or activities that fit together and interact to achieve a purpose. Work system design is concerned with how the various processes required to make a product or provide a service should operate. It deals with the set of related activities that combine to give a result that customers want. The structure of the system describes the relations between different operations.

A work system may be centred on activities such as manufacturing, chemical processing, information processing, supply, distribution, transport, the provision of public services or customer service. There is usually a choice between different processes within the work system. As the design of the work system affects costs, quality and productivity it is important to provide the best match between the product or service and the process used to make or deliver it.

Process-centred organizations avoid focusing too closely on the design of a rigid work system but instead concentrate on the stream of products or services required and the processes required to ensure that work flows smoothly to the ultimate satisfaction of the customer or client. They have the following features:

· The focus is on horizontal processes that cut across organizational boundaries.

· The overriding objective will be to maintain a smooth flow of work between functions and to achieve synergy by pooling resources from different functions in task forces or project teams.

· The organization will not be based on the old hierarchical ‘command and control’ structure, ie one that consists of a functional structure with a number of different disciplines. Instead it will be a ‘lattice’, or ‘matrix’ organization (a lattice organization is one with a non-hierarchical, flat structure where the emphasis is on horizontal processes, the elimination of boundaries between functions and teamwork; a matrix organization is one that consists of a functional structure with a number of different disciplines and a project structure consisting of project teams drawn from the disciplines);

· There may still be designated functions for, say, manufacturing, sales and distribution, but the emphasis will be on how these areas work together on multifunctional projects to deal with demands such as product/market development.

· Belief in and reliance on teamwork.

· Expansion of traditional jobs and increased emphasis on flexible roles, with employees making decisions and dealing with all types of customer issues.

· Access to all types of information and knowledge throughout the organization.

· Quality and continuous improvement will be regarded as a common responsibility shared between managers and staff from each function.

Work system design covers the planning of processes such as flexible manufacturing systems (computer numerical control machines controlled by a central computer that allows fast and easy changes between products), and supply chain management (the control of products from the original suppliers of materials through to the final customers). It may involve facility layout – the physical arrangement of equipment, offices, rooms, work stations (including ‘hot-desks’ – individual desks shared between several people) and other resources.

Process planning may determine how manufacturing or the provision of a service should be divided into a series of stages such as machines in a production line, each of which uses resources and adds value.

When designing a work system it is necessary to see that it will:

· fit work requirements for efficiency and flexibility;

· ensure the smooth flow of processes or activities, or of materials from supplier to customer;

· facilitate the effective use of resources and the control of waste;

· as far as possible enable employees to gain fulfilment from their work by providing scope for variety, challenge and autonomy;

· encourage cooperative effort through teamworking;

· provide a good work environment in terms of working conditions;

· take account of the need to provide a healthy and safe system of work (‘build safety into the system’) bearing in mind the need to minimize stress and pay attention to ergonomic considerations in the design of equipment and work stations to eliminate or at least significantly reduce the risk of such conditions as repetitive strain injury;

· take account of environmental considerations;

· operate generally in accordance with the principles of ‘smart working’ as described below.

As defined by the CIPD (2008: 4), smart working is: ‘An approach to organizing work that aims to drive greater efficiency and effectiveness in achieving job outcomes through a combination of flexibility, autonomy and collaboration, in parallel with optimizing tools and working environments for employees.’ The characteristics of smart working as established by the CIPD research were:

· self-management – a high degree of autonomy and a philosophy of empowerment;

· the use of virtual teams or work groups;

· focus on outcome-based indicators of performance;

· high-performance working;

· flexibility in work locations and hours;

· use of more advanced communications technology;

· hot-desking and working from home;

· ways of working that are underpinned by or drive high-trust working relationships;

· alignment of smart working with business objectives.

Typical smart working arrangements identified by the CIPD research include flexible working, high-performance working, ‘lean’ production and designing jobs in which there is a higher degree of freedom to act. The role of each of those arrangements in work design is described below.

Flexible working is a pattern of working practice or working hours that deviates from the standard or normal arrangement. The aim is to provide for greater operational flexibility, improve the use of employees’ skills and capacities, increase productivity and reduce employment costs. Flexible working has become increasingly important as a means of enhancing operational effectiveness.

Flexible working means reconsidering traditional employment patterns. This could include operational flexibility, multiskilling, the use of subcontracting and outsourcing, or introducing working arrangements such as flexible hours, job sharing and homeworking.

Operational flexibility refers to flexibility in the ways in which work is carried out. The term is sometimes extended to include financial flexibility. The three forms of operational flexibility are:

· Functional flexibility so that employees can be redeployed quickly and smoothly between activities and tasks. It may require multiskilling – workers who possess and can apply a number of skills, for example, both mechanical and electrical engineering, or multitasking – workers who carry out a number of different tasks in a work team.

· Structural flexibility in a ‘flexible firm’ where the core of permanent employees is supplemented by a peripheral group of part-time employees, employees on short- or fixed-term contracts or subcontracted workers, as described by Doeringer and Priore (1971) and Atkinson (1984).

· Numerical flexibility, which is associated with structural flexibility and means that the number of employees can be quickly and easily increased or decreased in line with even short-term changes in the level of demand for labour.

Financial flexibility provides for pay levels to reflect the state of supply and demand in the external labour market and also means the use of flexible pay systems that facilitate either functional or numerical flexibility.

Multiskilling takes place when workers acquire through experience and training a range of different skills they can apply when carrying out different tasks (multitasking). This means that they can be used flexibly, transferring from one task to another as the occasion demands.

A multiskilling strategy will mean providing people with a variety of experience through, for example, moving them between different jobs or tasks (job rotation) and secondments, and by making arrangements for them to acquire new skills through training. It typically includes setting up flexible work teams, the members of which can be deployed on all or many of the team’s tasks. A flexible employee resourcing policy can then be established that enables the organization to redeploy people rapidly to meet new demands. This implies abandoning the traditional job description that prescribes the tasks to be carried and replacing it with a role profile, which specifies the range of knowledge and skills that the role holder needs.

This is an arrangement in which two employees share the work of one full-time position, dividing pay and benefits between them according to the time that each of them works. Job-sharing can mean splitting days or weeks or, less frequently, working alternate weeks. The advantages of job-sharing include reduced employee turnover and absenteeism, because it suits the needs of individuals. Greater continuity results: because if one half of the job-sharing team is ill or leaves, the sharer will continue working for at least half the time. Job-sharing also means that a wider employment pool can be tapped for those who cannot work full-time but want permanent employment. The disadvantages are the administrative costs involved and the risk of responsibility being divided.

Hot-desking means that individual desks are shared between several people who use them at different times. Those involved do not therefore have a permanent work station. This is convenient for the organization but not everyone likes it.

Home-based employees can carry out such roles as consultants, analysts, designers or programmers, or they can undertake administrative work. The advantages are flexibility to respond rapidly to fluctuations in demand, reduced overheads and lower employment costs if the homeworkers are self-employed (care, however, has to be taken to ensure that they are regarded as self-employed for Income Tax and National Insurance purposes).

Flexible hour arrangements can be included in a flexibility plan in one or more of the following ways:

· flexible daily hours – these may follow an agreed pattern day by day according to typical or expected workloads (eg flexitime systems);

· flexible weekly hours – providing for longer weekly hours to be worked at certain peak periods during the year;

· flexible daily and weekly hours – varying daily or weekly hours or a combination of both to match the input of hours to the required output. Such working times, unlike daily or weekly arrangements, may fluctuate between a minimum and a maximum;

· compressed working weeks in which employees work fewer than the five standard days;

· annual hours – scheduling employee hours on the basis of the number of hours to be worked, with provisions for the increase or reduction of hours in any given period, according to the demand for goods or services.

In addition there is the pernicious arrangement of zero-hours contracts in which an employer does not guarantee the employee a fixed number of hours per week. Rather, the employee is expected to be on-call and receive pay only for hours worked. Such contracts are most common in retail, hospitality and restaurants.

High-performance working was defined by Combs et al (2006) as the sum of the processes, practices and policies put in place by employers to enable employees to perform to their full potential. They referred to employee participation and flexible working arrangements as examples of such systems that have a direct impact on ways of working and therefore flow through to job design.

Sung and Ashton (2005) defined high-performance work practices as a set or ‘bundle’ of 35 complementary work practices covering three broad areas:

· High employee involvement work practices – eg self-directed teams, quality circles and sharing/access to company information.

· Human resource practices – eg sophisticated recruitment processes, performance appraisals, mentoring and work redesign.

· Reward and commitment practices – eg various financial rewards, family-friendly policies, job rotation and flexible hours.

Lean manufacturing or lean production, often known simply as ‘Lean’, is a process improvement methodology developed by Toyota in Japan. Lean focuses on reducing waste and ensuring the flow of production in order to deliver value to customers. It concentrates initially on the design of the process so that waste can be minimized during manufacture. It then examines operations in order to identify opportunities to improve the flow of production, remove wasteful practices and engage in continuous improvement. Various tools are available such as ‘FiveS’, which is a workplace methodology that uses a list of five words starting with the letter ‘S’ (sorting, straightening, systematic cleaning, standardizing and sustaining). Reference to these enables a dialogue to take place with employees on how work should be done.

But as noted by the CIPD (2008: 11), the success of Lean depends not so much on the tools but on its approach to work. Lean is implemented by communities of people who carry out and supervise the work and may include stakeholders such as customers. Lean team members are encouraged to think flexibly and be adaptable to change. They have a sense of ownership of what they do and achieve.

Work organization: W L Gore

As described by the CIPD (2008: 25–26), W L Gore, which is best known for its GORE-TEX® fabrics, has a non-hierarchical, flat organization structure (a ‘lattice’ structure). There are no traditional organization charts, no ranks or job titles and no chains of command nor predetermined channels of communication. What is important when recruiting new people is that they have the right fit with Gore’s culture. There are no rigid job specifications. Instead, associates make a commitment to contribute individually and collectively to work areas or projects according to their skills. Individuals are encouraged to take an interest in a wide variety of job areas or projects. Provided the core responsibilities within their role are carried out, associates can then stretch and build on their role to suit their interests, aspirations and the business needs. Gore’s ‘lattice’ structure gives associates the opportunity to use their own judgement, take ownership of work areas and access the resources they need for projects to be successful. Gore’s core values and ways of working are built on the principles of ‘smart working’. Its unique culture, which fosters creativity, self-motivation, participation and equality, has proved to be a key contributor to associate satisfaction and retention.

Flexible working: B&Q

Flexible working arrangements have been extended at B&Q in association with its diversity strategy. The main components of its flexible working policy are:

· term-time contracts available to parents and grandparents with children/grandchildren up to the age of 16 years (18 if the child is disabled);

· job-share for employees who do not want – or are unable – to work full-time; online job-share register available to help individuals find a job-share partner;

· staggered start/finish times, allowing for personal commitments/interests;

· part-time hours;

· split shifts to fit in with employees’ personal commitments;

· dual store contracts, allowing employees to work at more than one location;

· one employee/two roles, allowing employees to develop new and different skills, benefit from multiskilling and work in more than one area of the business;

· home/remote working, allowing employees to work from home or away from their normal workplace on an occasional basis;

· career breaks of 3 to 12 months can be taken for any reason;

· child care vouchers available across the organization;

· maternity, paternity and adoption policies enhanced above the statutory minimum;

· shared maternity/paternity leave; unpaid additional leave can be taken by father/partner where both parents work for B&Q and mother returns to work;

· IVF leave: one week paid time off for IVF treatment;

· paid compassionate or carer’s leave: one week off per year.

Organization design

Organization design is the process of deciding how organizations should be structured in terms of the ways in which the responsibility for carrying out the overall task is allocated to individuals and groups of people and how the relationships between them function. The aim is to ensure that people work effectively together to achieve the overall purpose of the organization. The basic question of ‘Who does what?’ is answered by line managers but HR specialists are also involved in their capacity of helping the business to make the best use of its people. HR professionals can contribute to organization design or redesign activities by using their understanding of the factors affecting organizational behaviour and their knowledge of the business as a whole.

There is never one best way of organizing anything. There is always a choice. It is necessary to bear in mind that structural requirements in organizations or organizational units will vary widely according to what they are there to do and the activities they have to carry out. That is why there are no absolute principles such as the traditional precepts of ‘unity of command’ (one person, one boss) or the need to limit spans of control (the number of functions or people for which a manager is responsible). It all depends. Burns and Stalker (1961) established in their study of electronic companies in Scotland that in stable conditions a highly structured or ‘mechanistic’ organization will emerge that has specialized functions, clearly defined jobs, strict administrative routines and a hierarchical system of exercising control. However, when the environment is volatile, a rigid system of ranks and routine will inhibit the organization’s speed and sensitivity of response. In these circumstances the structure is, or should be, ‘organic’ in the sense that it is a function of the situation in which the enterprise finds itself rather than conforming to any predetermined and rigid view of how it should operate.

As explained by Cummings and Worley (2005: 516), this means that there are two different types of organization design – mechanistic and organic – the characteristics of which are shown in Table 11.2.

In exercising organizational choice an organizational review, as described below, will help in the evaluation of the alternatives, but the law of the situation, as described originally by Mary Parker Follett (1924), should prevail. This states that the work that people are required to do depends on the objective requirements of the situation. The final choice will depend upon the context and circumstances of the organization – as Lupton (1975) pointed out, it is important to achieve best fit.

Organizations may evolve organically without any conscious attempt to design them. But if a deliberate design programme is planned this should be based on the evidence that can be produced by a formal organization review conducted in the following stages:

1. Activity analysis to establish what work is done and what needs to be done. Two questions need to be answered: 1) are all the activities required properly catered for?; 2) are any unnecessary activities being carried out?

2. Structural analysis to determine how activities are grouped together; the number of levels in the hierarchy; the extent to which authority is decentralized to divisions and strategic business units (SBUs); where functions such as finance, HR, IT and research and development are placed in the structure (eg as central functions or integrated into divisions or SBUs); the relationships that exist between different units and functions (with particular attention being given to the way in which they communicate and cooperate with one another). Attention would be paid to such issues as the logic of the way in which activities are grouped and decentralized; the span of control of managers (the number of separate functions or people they are directly responsible for); any overlap between functions or gaps leading to the neglect of certain activities; the existence of unnecessary departments, units, functions or layers of management; the clarity with which individual responsibilities and accountabilities are defined.

As noted by Parker et al (2001: 418): ‘Organizations… differ from the rather static and inflexible enterprises of earlier times. Greater flexibility is required to enable the rapid delivery of low-cost, high-quality and customized products, and to provide increasingly powerful and demanding customers with seamless service.’ They also noted that the use of teamworking and other flexible forms of working continues to grow, distinctions between departments are disappearing as organizations become more integrated, and IT has changed the way in which work is conducted. These considerations may indicate that a traditional hierarchical and rigid structure is inappropriate and a more flexible approach is required.

As noted above, there is always choice about what form an organization structure should take. Child (1972) explained that in making such choices the leadership group (the dominant coalition) had to be persuaded to influence the organization structure through an essentially political process. He called this process ‘strategic choice’. Choice analysis regards debate and negotiation in the social networks existing in organizations as integral to decision-making on organizational structures.

Organizations are not static things. Changes are constantly taking place in the business itself, in the environment in which the business operates, and in the people who work in the business. There is no such thing as an ‘ideal’ organization. The most that can be done is to optimize the processes involved, remembering that whatever structure evolves it will be contingent on the circumstances of the organization. An important point to bear in mind is that organizations consist of people working more or less cooperatively together. Inevitably, and especially at managerial levels, the organization may have to be adjusted to fit the particular strengths and attributes of the people available. The result may not conform to the ideal, but it is more likely to work than a structure that ignores the human element. It is always desirable to have an ideal structure in mind, but it is equally desirable to modify it to meet particular circumstances, as long as there is awareness of any potential problems that may arise. This may seem an obvious point, but it is frequently ignored by management consultants and others who adopt a doctrinaire approach to organization, often with disastrous results.

The worst sin that organization designers can commit is that of imposing their own ideology on the organization. Their job is to be eclectic in their knowledge, sensitive in their analysis of the situation and deliberate in their approach to the evaluation of alternatives.

Research conducted by Whittington and Molloy (2005) indicated that to achieve success in organization design it is necessary to:

· obtain top management support, especially personal commitment and political support;

· avoid piecemeal, uncoordinated change initiatives by making a strategic business case that anticipates implications across the entire organization;

· achieve substantive, rather than tokenistic, employee involvement in the change process, moving beyond communication to active engagement;

· invest in communications with external stakeholders, including customers, suppliers and financial stakeholders;

· involve HR professionals closely, right from the start – involving HR has been proved to positively impact on a range of performance outcomes;

· maintain effective project management disciplines;

· build skilled change management teams – with the right mix of experience and abilities – that can work together.

Job design

Job design specifies the contents of jobs in order to satisfy work requirements and meet the personal needs of the job holder, thus increasing levels of employee engagement. As observed by Wall and Clegg (1998: 265):

Jobs are created by people for people. Whether deliberately or by default, choices are made about which tasks to group together to form a job, the extent to which job holders should follow prescribed procedures in completing those tasks, how closely the job incumbent will be supervised, and numerous other aspects of the work. Such choices are the essence of job design.

A distinction can be made between jobs and roles. A job is an organizational unit consisting of a group of defined tasks or activities to be carried out or duties to be performed. A role is the part played by individuals and the patterns of behaviour expected of them in fulfilling their work requirements. Jobs are about tasks, roles are about people. This distinction means that while jobs may be designed to fit work requirements, roles are developed as people work flexibly, demonstrate that they can do more and take on different responsibilities. Role development (as covered in the next section of this chapter) happens informally, in contrast to the more formal approaches to job design (considered below).

Deciding on the content of a job starts from work requirements because that is why the job exists. When the tasks to be done have been determined it is then necessary to consider how the jobs can be set up to provide the maximum degree of intrinsic motivation for those who have to carry them out with a view to improving performance and productivity. Consideration also has to be given to another important aim of job design: to fulfil the social responsibilities of the organization to the people who work in it by improving the quality of working life, an aim that, as stated in Wilson’s (1973) report on this subject, depends upon both efficiency of performance and satisfaction of the worker.

Clearly, the content of a job depends on the work system in which it exists and the organization structure in which it is placed. Job design therefore happens within the context of work and organization design, as described in this chapter, but it is also affected by the following factors:

· the characteristics of jobs;

· the characteristics of task structure;

· the process of intrinsic motivation;

· the job characteristics model;

· the implications of group activities.

There are three fundamental characteristics shared by all jobs:

1. Job range – the number of operations a job holder performs to complete a task.

2. Job depth – the amount of discretion a job holder has to decide job activities and job outcomes.

3. Job relationships – the interpersonal relationships between job holders and their managers and co-workers.

Job design requires the assembly of a number of tasks into a job or a group of jobs. An individual may carry out one main task that consists of a number of interrelated elements or functions. Or task functions may be allocated to a team working closely together in a manufacturing ‘cell’ or customer service unit, or strung along an assembly line. In more complex jobs, individuals may carry out a variety of connected tasks (multitasking), each with a number of functions, or these tasks may be allocated to a team of workers or be divided between them. In the latter case, the tasks may require a variety of skills that have to be possessed by all members of the team (multiskilling) in order to work flexibly. Complexity in a job may be a reflection of the number and variety of tasks to be carried out, the different skills or competencies to be used, the range and scope of the decisions that have to be made, or the difficulty of predicting the outcome of decisions.

The internal structure of each task consists of three elements: planning (deciding on the course of action, its timing and the resources required), executing (carrying out the plan) and controlling (monitoring performance and progress and taking corrective action when required). A completely integrated job includes all these elements for each of the tasks involved. The worker, or group of workers, having been given objectives in terms of output, quality and cost targets, decides on how the work is to be done, assembles the resources, performs the work, and monitors output, quality and cost standards. Responsibility in a job is measured by the amount of authority that someone has to do all of these things.

The ideal arrangement from the point of view of engagement and motivation is to provide for fully integrated jobs containing all three task elements. In practice, management and team leaders are often entirely responsible for planning and control, leaving the worker responsible for execution. To a degree, this is inevitable, but one of the aims of job design is often to extend the responsibility of workers into the functions of planning and control. This can involve empowerment – giving individuals and teams more responsibility for decision-making and ensuring that they have the training, support and guidance to exercise that responsibility properly.

The case for using job design techniques is based on the premise that effective performance and genuine satisfaction in work follow mainly from the intrinsic content of the job. This is related to the fundamental concept that people are motivated when they are provided with the means to achieve their goals. Work provides the means to earn money, which as an extrinsic reward satisfies basic needs and is instrumental in providing ways of satisfying higher-level needs. But work also provides intrinsic rewards related to achievement, responsibility and the opportunity to use and develop skills that are more under the control of the worker.

The most influential model for job design is the job characteristics model developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974). They identified five core job characteristics:

1. Skill variety: the degree to which a job requires an employee to perform activities that challenge his or her skills and abilities.

2. Task identity: the degree to which the job requires completion of an identifiable piece of work.

3. Task significance: the degree to which the job outcome has a substantial impact on others.

4. Autonomy: the degree to which the job gives an employee freedom and discretion in scheduling work and determining how it is performed.

5. Feedback: the degree to which an employee gets information about the effectiveness of his or her efforts – with particular emphasis on feedback directly related to the work itself rather than from a third party (for example, a manager).

Hackman and Oldham explained that if the design of a job satisfied the core job characteristics the employee would perceive that the work was worthwhile, would feel responsible for the work and would know if the work had been completed satisfactorily. The outcome of this would be high-quality work performance and high job satisfaction as a result of intrinsic motivation.

Jobs should never be considered in isolation. All job holders belong to formal or informal groups and the interrelationships that exist in such groups should be considered when looking at the content of an individual job.

This is the movement of employees from one task to another to reduce monotony by increasing variety.

This means combining previously fragmented tasks into one job, again to increase the variety and meaning of repetitive work.

This goes beyond job enlargement to add greater autonomy and responsibility to a job. Job enrichment aims to maximize the interest and challenge of work by providing the employee with a job that has these characteristics:

· it is a complete piece of work in the sense that the worker can identify a series of tasks or activities that end in a recognizable and definable product;

· it affords the employee as much variety, decision-making responsibility and control as possible in carrying out the work;

· it provides direct feedback through the work itself on how well the employee is doing his or her job.

As described by Herzberg (1968), job enrichment is not just increasing the number or variety of tasks, nor is it the provision of opportunities for job rotation. These approaches may relieve boredom, but they do not result in positive increases in motivation.

These are self-regulating teams who work largely without direct supervision. The philosophy on which this approach is founded is that of job enrichment but it is also influenced by socio-technical systems theory, which suggests that because the technical aspects of work are interrelated with the social aspects both should be considered when designing jobs.

A self-managing team enlarges individual jobs to include a wider range of operative skills (multiskilling); decides on methods of work and the planning, scheduling and control of work; distributes tasks itself among its members; and monitors its own performance, taking corrective action when required.

The advocates of self-managing teams or autonomous work groups claim that they represent a more comprehensive view of organizations than the rather simplistic individual motivation theories that underpin job rotation, enlargement and enrichment. Be that as it may, the strength of this system is that in line with socio-technical theory it takes account of the social or group factors and the technology, as well as the individual motivators.

In a study of customer service representatives in a telecommunications company, Batt (1999) found that work organized into self-managed teams led to better service and sales performance (an increase of 9.2 per cent per employee) than traditional work designs, and that the interactive effect of self-managed teams and new technology raised sales by an additional 17.4 per cent.

Of the four approaches described above, it is generally recognized that, although job rotation and job enlargement have their uses in developing skills and relieving monotony, they do not go to the root of the requirements for intrinsic motivation and for meeting the various motivating characteristics of jobs. These are best satisfied by using, as appropriate, job enrichment, autonomous work groups, or high-performance work design.

This concentrates on setting up working groups in environments where high levels of performance can be achieved. As described by Buchanan (1987), this requires management to define what it needs in the form of methods of production and the results expected from its introduction. It involves multiskilling – job demarcation lines are eliminated as far as possible and encouragement and training are provided for employees to acquire new skills. Self-managed teams are set up with full responsibility for planning, controlling and monitoring the work.

Role development

Role development is the continuous process through which roles are defined or modified as work proceeds and evolves. Job design as described above takes place when a new job is created or an existing job is changed, often following a reorganization or the introduction of a new work system. But the part that people play in carrying out their roles can evolve over time as people grow into their roles and grow with them, and as incremental changes take place in the scope of the work and the degree to which individuals have freedom to act (their autonomy). Roles will be developed as people develop in them – responding to opportunities and changing demands, acquiring new skills and developing competencies.

Role development takes place in the context of day-to-day work and is therefore a matter between managers and the members of their teams. It means agreeing definitions of accountabilities, objectives and competency requirements as the roles evolve. When these change – as they probably will in all except the most routine jobs – it is desirable to achieve mutual understanding of new expectations.

The process of understanding how roles are developing, and agreeing the implications, can take place through performance management in which the regularly updated performance agreement spells out agreed outcomes (key result areas) and competency requirements. It is necessary to ensure that managers and team leaders define roles within the performance management framework, taking into account the principles of job design set out above.

Key learning points: Work, organization and job design

Work, organization and job design provide the basic ingredients for operating a business. But it is necessary to see that these processes work well, which is the aim of organization development. In this chapter, organization development is defined and its somewhat chequered history is described, from its origins as ‘OD’ to the more focused and businesslike approaches adopted today. This leads to a discussion of organization development strategy and an examination of organization development in practice, involving the use of diagnostics as the basis for preparing organization development programmes.

Organization development defined

Organization development is a systematic approach to improving organizational capability, which is concerned with process – how things get done. As expressed by Beer (1980: 10), OD operates as: ‘A system wide process of data collection, diagnosis, action planning, intervention and evaluation.’

Organization development in its traditional form as OD was later defined by Rowlandson (1984: 90) as ‘an intervention strategy that uses group processes to focus on the whole culture of an organization in order to bring about planned change’. More recently, the CIPD (2010: 1) defined it broadly as a ‘planned and systematic approach to enabling sustained organization performance through the involvement of its people’.

The nature of organization development

Organization development in its original version as OD was based on behavioural science concepts, ie the field of enquiry dedicated to the study of human behaviour through sophisticated and rigorous methods. OD was practised through what were called ‘interventions’.

However, during the 1980s and 1990s a number of other approaches were introduced. Further changes occurred in the following decade during which a more strategic focus was adopted and more business-focused activities such as smart working and high-performance working came to the fore. It is these changes that led to the broader definition produced by the CIPD.

Organization development used to be the province of specialized consultants who tended to practise it as a mystery, with HR playing a supporting role if it played any role at all. But HR Magazine spelt out the close relationship between HR and organization development as follows.

Source review

HR and organization development – HR Magazine (2007: 1)

To remain competitive in today’s global marketplace, organizations must change. One of the most effective tools to promote successful change is organization development (OD). As HR increasingly focuses on building organizational learning, skills and workforce productivity, the effective use of OD to help achieve company business goals and strategies is becoming a broad HR competency as well as a key strategic HR tool. While there are variations regarding the definition of OD, the basic purpose of organization development is to increase an organization’s effectiveness through planned interventions related to the organization’s processes (often company-wide), resulting in improvements in productivity, return on investment and employee satisfaction.

The CIPD (2010: 3) stated that: ‘We place considerable importance on OD, seeing it as one of the ten professional areas within the HR profession map which emphasizes its importance as a HR skill.’ The CIPD also commented that:

OD is not a new discipline and has always had a focus on people but has only relatively recently become considered as a mainstream discipline of HR. Supporters of OD argue that its strength is its ability to understand the whole organization and as such it may be inhibiting to root it too firmly in the HR function. However, given the increasing need for the HR profession to act as a business partner, OD and its methods have a part to play in developing HR’s strategic role and its involvement in organizational change, organizational culture and employee engagement. (ibid: 3)

The strategic nature of organization development as an integral part of HRM arises because it can play a part in the implementation of business strategy. For example, a strategy for business model innovation (the process followed by an organization to develop a new business model or change an existing one) could result in the need for new organization structures and processes. This would include organization development and change management activities. The aim of this chapter is to explain the purpose of organization development in the light of an analysis of the history of the concept and how it can be applied as part of a strategic HRM approach.

The story of organization development

There are three chapters in the story of organizational development: the original version of the 1960s and 70s, the extensions and modifications to the original approach in the 1980s and 90s, and the new look at organization development of the 2000s.

Organization development emerged as the ‘OD’ movement in the 1960s. It was based on the strong humanistic values of its early founders, who wanted to improve the conditions of people’s lives in organizations by applying behavioural science knowledge. Its origins can be traced to the writings of behavioural scientists such as Lewin (1947, 1951) on group dynamics (the improvement of group processes through various forms of training, eg team building, interactive skills training, T-groups) and change management. Other behavioural scientists included Maslow (1954) who produced his needs theory of motivation, Herzberg et al (1957) who wrote about the motivation to work, and Argyris (1957) who emphasized the need to plan for integration and involvement. McGregor (1960) produced his ‘Theory Y’, which advocates the recognition of the needs of both the organization and the individual on the basis that, given the chance, people will not only accept but seek responsibility. Likert (1961) added his theory of supportive relationships.

The two founders of the organization development movement were Beckhard (1969) who probably coined the term, and Bennis (1969) who, according to Buchanan and Huczynski (2007: 575), described OD as a ‘truth, trust, love and collaboration approach’. Ruona and Gibson (2004: 53) explained that:

Early OD interventions can be categorized as primarily focusing on individuals and interpersonal relations. OD was established as a social philosophy that emphasized a long-term orientation, the applied behavioural sciences, external and process-oriented consultation, change managed from the top, a strong emphasis on action research and a focus on creating change in collaboration with managers.

As originally conceived, OD programmes aimed to increase the effectiveness of the various processes that take place in organizations, especially those relating to the ways in which people work together. It was also concerned with improving the quality of people’s working lives. The original OD philosophy was that of humanism – the belief that human factors are paramount in the study of organizational behaviour. This had its roots in the conclusions reached from the Hawthorne studies of 1924 to 1932 (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939) that the productivity of workers increases when someone they respect takes an interest in them. The focus then turned to the needs of people as individuals and in groups with an emphasis on process – how people worked together and how this could be improved. The assumptions and values of OD were that:

· Most individuals are driven by the need for personal growth and development as long as their environment is both supportive and challenging.

· The work team, especially at the informal level, has great significance for feelings of satisfaction, and the dynamics of such teams have a powerful effect on the behaviour of their members.

· Organizations can be more effective if they learn to diagnose their own strengths and weaknesses.

· Managers often do not know what is wrong and need special help in diagnosing problems, although the outside ‘process consultant’ ensures that decision-making remains in the hands of the client.

OD during this time was practised predominantly by external consultants working with senior managers. Personnel specialists were not involved to any great extent. OD programmes consisted then of ‘interventions’ such as those listed below. In OD jargon an intervention is a planned activity designed to improve organizational effectiveness or manage change. The following are the traditional OD interventions; they still feature in current programmes:

· Process consultation – helping clients to generate and analyse information that they can understand and, following a thorough diagnosis, act upon. The information relates to organizational processes such as inter-group relations, interpersonal relations and communications.

· Change management – often using the techniques advocated by Lewin (1951), which consisted of processes of managing change by unfreezing, changing and freezing, and force-field analysis (analysing and dealing with the driving forces that affect transition to a future state).

· Action research – collecting data from people about process issues and feeding it back in order to identify problems and their likely causes as a basis for an action plan to deal with the problem.

· Appreciative enquiry – a methodology that does not focus entirely on finding out what is wrong in order to solve problems. Instead it adopts the more positive approach of identifying ‘best practices’ – what is working well – and using that information as a basis for planning change. It can be associated with action research.

· Survey feedback – a variety of action research in which data is systematically collected about the system through attitude surveys and workshops leading to action plans.

· Group dynamics – improving the ways in which people work together by means of programmes that aim to increase the effectiveness of groups through various forms of training, eg team building, interactive skills training and T-groups (‘training groups’, which aim to increase sensitivity, diagnostic ability and action skills).

· Personal interventions – developing interpersonal skills through such processes as transactional analysis (an approach to understanding how people behave and express themselves through transactions with others), behaviour modelling (the use of positive reinforcement and corrective feedback to change behaviour) and neurolinguistic programming or NLP (teaching people to programme their reactions to others and develop unconscious strategies for interacting with them).

The OD movement as originally conceived and practised was characterized by what Buchanan and Huczynski (2007: 559) called ‘quasi-religious values’ with some of the features of a religious movement, which, they claimed, is one reason why it has survived as a concept in spite of the criticisms that began to be levelled at it in the 1980s. Weidner (2004: 39) wrote that: ‘OD was something that practitioners felt and lived as much as they believed’ (original emphasis).

One of the earliest critics was McLean (1981: 4) who noted ‘the moral and ethical misgivings concerned with the development of what might be regarded as a sophisticated science of manipulation’. He cited a comment by Strauss (1976) that at times OD is little more than abstract moralization and asserted that:

It is becoming increasingly apparent that there exists a considerable discrepancy between OD as practised and the prescriptive stances taken by many OD writers…The theory of change and change management which is the foundation of most OD programmes is based on over-simplistic generalizations which offer little specific guidance to practitioners faced with the confusing complexity of a real change situation. (ibid: 13)

Armstrong (1984: 113) commented that: ‘Organization development has lost a degree of credibility in recent years because the messianic zeal displayed by some practitioners has been at variance with the circumstances and real needs of the organization.’ Burke (1995: 8) stated that ‘in the mid-1970s, OD was still associated with T-groups, participative management and consensus, Theory Y, and self-actualization – the soft human, touchy-feely kinds of activities’.

An even more powerful critic was Legge (1995: 212), who observed that the OD rhetoric fitted the era of ‘flower power’ and that: ‘OD was seen, on the one hand as a form of devious manipulation, and on the other as “wishy-washy” and ineffectual.’ She noted ‘the relative lack of success of OD initiatives in effecting major and lasting cultural change, with the aim of generating commitment to new values in the relatively small number of organizations in which it was tried’ (ibid: 213), and produced the following devastating critique.

Source review

A critique of organization development – Legge (1995: 213)

In order to cope with an increasingly complex and changing environment, many of the initiatives were, in retrospect, surprisingly inward looking, involving schemes of management development, work system design, attempts at participation, almost as a good in their own right, without close attention as to how they were to deliver against market-driven organizational success criteria. The long-term nature of OD activities, together with difficulties to clearly establishing to sceptics their contribution to organizational success criteria (and within a UK culture of financial short-termism) rendered the initiatives at best marginal… and at worst to be treated with a cynical contempt.

The main criticisms of OD, as noted by Marsh et al (2010: 143), were that it was: ‘Oriented to process and tools rather than results… where techniques are considered to be ends in themselves rather than a means to deliver organizational performance.’

During the 1980s and 90s an alternative approach emerged, that of culture management, which aimed at achieving cultural change as a means of enhancing organizational capability. Culture change or culture management programmes start with an analysis of the existing culture, which may involve the use of a diagnostic such as the ‘Organizational Culture Inventory’ devised by Cooke and Lafferty (1989). The desired culture is then defined – one that enables the organization to function effectively and achieve its strategic objectives. As a result, a ‘culture gap’ is identified, which needs to be filled. This analysis of culture identifies behavioural expectations so that HR processes can be used to develop and reinforce them. This sounds easier than it really is. Culture is a complex and often hard to define notion and it is usually strongly embedded and therefore difficult to change. Anthony (1990: 4) argued that: ‘The management of culture… purports to define the meaning of people’s lives so that they become concomitant with the organization’s view of itself. [It is] the adjustment of human meaning for organizational ends.’ He also observed that: ‘Published cases do exist of organizations within which major changes in culture have been successfully accomplished and shown to persist but they are rare’ (ibid: 5). However, culture management became a process in its own right and OD consultants jumped on the bandwagon.

Culture management involves change management, another important item in the OD toolkit. But as Caldwell (2003: 132) argued: ‘It is assumed within most OD models that change can be planned in a “rational” or linear manner, and that the change agent can facilitate this group process, although there is little evidence to support this illusion of “manageability”.’

Other movements in this period that could be described as organization development activities but exist as distinct entities included total quality management (TQM) and quality circles. TQM aims to ensure that all activities within an organization happen in the way they have been planned in order to meet the defined needs of customers. Its approach is holistic – quality management is not a separate function to be treated in isolation, but is an integral part of all operations. Quality circles are groups of volunteers engaged in related work who meet regularly to discuss and propose ways of improving working methods under a trained leader.

Another approach more closely related to OD that emerged at this time was organizational transformation. This was defined by Cummins and Worley (2005: 752) as: ‘A process of radically altering the organization’s strategic direction, including fundamental changes in structures, processes and behaviours.’

Holistic approaches to improving organizational capability emerging in this period, which were not part of what was conventionally known as OD, included high-performance working, high-commitment management, high-involvement management and performance management. The development of these systems in the 2000s led to a radically changed view of what constituted organization development.

The process of integrated strategic change as conceived by Worley et al (1996) can be used to formulate and implement organization development strategies. The steps required are:

· Strategic analysis, a review of the organization’s strategic orientation (its strategic intentions within its competitive environment) and a diagnosis of the organization’s readiness for change.

· Develop strategic capability – the ability to implement the strategic plan quickly and effectively.

· Integrate individuals and groups throughout the organization into the processes of analysis, planning and implementation to maintain the firm’s strategic focus, direct attention and resources to the organization’s key competencies, improve coordination and integration within the organization and create higher levels of shared ownership and commitment.

· Create the strategy, gain commitment and support for it and plan its implementation.

· Implement the strategic change plan, drawing on knowledge of motivation, group dynamics and change processes, dealing with issues such as alignment, adaptability, teamwork and organizational and individual learning.

· Allocate resources, provide feedback and solve problems as they arise.

Organizational diagnosis

The practice of organization development is based on an analysis and diagnosis of the circumstances of the organization, the strategic, operational or process issues that are affecting the organization and its ability to perform well. As defined by Manzini (1988: ix): ‘An organizational diagnosis is a systematic process of gathering data about a business organization – its problems, challenges, strengths and limitations – and analysing how such factors influence its ability to interact effectively and profitably with its business environment.’ This involves the use of the diagnostic cycle with associated analytical and diagnostic tools, which enable those concerned with development to identify areas of concern that can be dealt with in an organization development programme.

The diagnostic cycle as described by Manzini (1988: 11) consists of:

· data gathering;

· analysis;

· feedback;

· action planning;

· implementation;

· evaluation.

The two most used analytical tools are SWOT analysis and PESTLE analysis. A SWOT analysis is a ‘looking in’ and ‘looking out’ approach that covers the internal organizational factors of strengths and weaknesses and the external factors of opportunities and threats. PESTLE analysis is an environmental scanning tool that covers the following factors: political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental.

Diagnostics are tools such as questionnaires or checklists that gather information about a business or on the opinions and attitudes of employees in order to identify issues and problems that can be dealt with in an organization development programme. They enable those concerned with organization development to understand what is happening and why it is happening so that they can do something about it. Diagnostics can be used to assess overall organizational effectiveness in the shape of general strategic, business and operational issues, or they can deal with more specific areas of concern such as a review of the organization’s ideology, culture or climate, or a survey of levels of engagement or commitment. Examples of the approach used by various diagnostic instruments are given below.

This questionnaire deals with the four orientations defined by Harrison (power, role, task and self). The questionnaire is completed by ranking statements according to views on what is closest to the organization’s actual position. The following are examples of statements:

· a good boss is strong, decisive and firm but fair;

· a good subordinate is compliant, hard-working and loyal;

· people who do well in the organization are shrewd and competitive, with a strong need for power;

· the basis of task assignment is the personal needs and judgements of those in authority;

· decisions are made by people with the most knowledge and expertise about the problem.

This instrument assesses organizational culture under 12 headings:

1. Humanistic-helpful – organizations managed in a participative and person-centred way.

2. Affiliative – organizations that place a high priority on constructive relationships.

3. Approval – organizations in which conflicts are avoided and interpersonal relationships are pleasant – at least superficially.

4. Conventional – conservative, traditional and bureaucratically controlled organizations.

5. Dependent – hierarchically controlled and non-participative organizations.

6. Avoidance – organizations that fail to reward success but punish mistakes.

7. Oppositional – organizations in which confrontation prevails and negativism is rewarded.

· Autonomy – the perception of self-determination with respect to work procedures, goals and priorities.

· Cohesion – the perception of togetherness or sharing within the organization setting.

· Trust – the perception of freedom to communicate openly with members at higher organizational levels about sensitive or personal issues with the expectation that the integrity of such communications will not be violated.

· Resource – the perception of time demands with respect to task completion and performance standards.

· Support – the perception of the degree to which superiors tolerate members’ behaviour, including willingness to let members learn from their mistakes without fear of reprisal.

· Recognition – the perception that members’ contributions to the organization are acknowledged.

· Fairness – the perception that organizational policies are non-arbitrary or capricious.

· Innovation – the perception that change and creativity are encouraged, including risk-taking into new areas where the member has little or no prior experience.

A number of organizations conduct attitude or opinion surveys on behalf of their clients. Apart from the advantage of being well-tested and professionally administered they also facilitate benchmarking. Surveys provided by such organizations include the CIPD People and Performance employee questionnaire, the IES engagement survey, the Gallup engagement survey and the Saratoga engagement and commitment matrix.

The choice is from activities such as those set out in Table 12.1.

Key learning points: Organization development

Assumptions and values of OD

The assumptions and values of OD as originally conceived were that:

· Most individuals are driven by the need for personal growth and development as long as their environment is both supportive and challenging.

· The work team, especially at the informal level, has great significance for feelings of satisfaction and the dynamics of such teams have a powerful effect on the behaviour of their members.

· OD programmes aim to improve the quality of working life of all members of the organization.

· Organizations can be more effective if they learn to diagnose their own strengths and weaknesses.

· Managers often do not know what is wrong and need special help in diagnosing problems, although the outside ‘process consultant’ ensures that decision-making remains in the hands of the client.

OD interventions

OD interventions include process consultation, change management, action research, survey feedback, group dynamics and personal interventions.