2

Differences in Motivational Properties between Job Enlargement

and Job Enrichment

KAE H.CHUNG Wichita State University

MONICA F.ROSS University of Wisconsin-Madison

Differences in motivational properties between Job enlargement and job enrichment are investigated. Differences in employees' motivation and ability should be reflected in determining an appropriate type of job design. Expectancy/instrumentality theory of motivation provides a basis for explaining employees' responses to various job designs.

Though often viewed as inseparable or in- terchangeable concepts, job enlargement and job enrichment are best implemented as two dis- tinct managerial strategies, job enlargement re- quires changes in the technical aspects of a job, while job enrichment requires changes in be-

Kae H. Chung (Ph.D. — Louisiana State University) is Profes- sor of Administration at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.

Monica F. Ross is an M.B.A. candidate at the University of Wis- consin-Madison.

Received 11/17/75; Revised 2/16/76; Accepted 3/18/76; Revised 4/12/76.

havioral systems in an organization. Although enriching a job is said to have a stronger motiva- tional impact on employees than job enlarge- ment, it is extremely complex and time-consum- ing to implement because it involves changes in attitudes and values of organizational as well as societal members. Behavioral changes tend to arouse resistance from organizational members. But job enlargement involves technical changes, which can be adopted more expediently than behavioral changes, and is therefore less likely to cause organizational resistance. Contrary to Herzberg's (1) argument that job enlargement is

113

114 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment

a futile exercise in expanding the meaningless- ness of a job, an optimally enlarged job possesses a number of properties that can have a motiva- tional impact on some workers. Workers with low need for self-control and growth may be perfect- ly happy with enlarged jobs without job enrich- ment.

This article: (a) investigates the differences in motivational properties (task attributes, moti- vational effects, and managerial implications) of job enlargement and job enrichment and (b) sug- gests a set of managerial strategies to accommo- date the differences in employees' motivation in job design.

Motivational Properties of Job Enlargement

job enlargement is often called "horizontal job loading", simply adding more task elements to an existing job. When a job is enlarged, the worker performs a large work unit involving a variety of task elements rather than a fragmented job. An enlarged job can elicit intrinsic motiva- tion for a number of reasons, as explained by the following task attributes.

Task Attributes of Enlarged Jobs

Task Variety — A fragmented job requiring a limited number of unchanging responses can lead to boredom. Introduction of task variety causes a series of mental activations requiring a variety of responses and thus reducing monoto- ny. According to neuropsychological activation theory, the level of activation (the extent of an organism's energy release) is affected by stimu- lus intensity and variation; the greater the inten- sity and variation of stimuli, the higher the level of activation (8, 41). But there is an inverted-V re- lationship between activation level and perform- ance. At low activation levels, performance is de- pressed due to lack of alertness, decrease in sen- sory sensitivity, and lack of muscular coordina- tion. At intermediate levels, performance is opti- mal; at high levels, performance is again de- pressed due to hypertension and loss of control.

Job enlargement is supported by activation the- ory because task variation increases the level of activation; an intermediate level of task variety should sustain an optimal level of activation as well as performance.

Meaningful Work Module — By combining related task elements, the job becomes larger and closer to a whole work unit. The worker who performs a whole work unit, or at least a major portion of a product or project, begins to appre- ciate his or her contribution to the completion of the product or project. The worker who com- pletes a work module within a time unit that is psychologically and technically meaningful (20) will find the job interesting and worthwhile. The time unit can range from one-half hour to days, depending on the nature of the job and individ- ual differences in attention level. Key points for designing meaningful work modules are: a work- er who completes a work module should feel a sense of accomplishment; and each undertaking of a new module should rejuvenate the level of activation. Homans (16) suggested that tasks be designed so that repeated activities lead up to the accomplishment of some final result. When this happens, the enlarged job will have high motivation value.

Performance Feedback — A worker per- forming a fractionated job with short perform- ance cycles repeats the same set of motions end- lessly without obtaining a meaningful finishing point. It is difficult to count the number of fin- ished performance cycles, and even if counted, the feedback is meaningless. Knowledge of re- sults (KR) on enlarged jobs measures the work- er's level of accomplishment, which can be eval- uated for organizational rewards. KR serves two motivational functions. First, KR is an external stimulus if added to a repetitive and dull task; because activation level increases, the perform- ance level can be sustained or even improved at least temporarily (41). Second, KR can have a greater motivational value if it is internally gen- erated from task performance than if it is exter- nally introduced (10). The worker is more likely to utilize internally generated KR in setting per-

Academy of Management Review-January 1977 115

formance goals or standards in evaluating prog- ress toward these goals (6, 28, 29, 40).

Ability Utilization — People derive satisfac- tion from jobs that permit utilization of skills and abilities, and enlarged jobs usually require more mental and physical abilities. Vroom (44) re- ported a positive correlation between opportu- nity for self-expression in the job (ability utiliza- tion) and job satisfaction for blue-collar workers. Kornhauser (21) also reported a significant rela- tionship between ability utilization and mental health for young and middle-aged workers across various occupational levels. According to expectancy theorists (e.g., 2, 3, 26, 45), a task should be designed so that exertion of effort or energy results in task accomplishment. Simplified jobs are less motivating because they require low levels of ability and effort utilization. Since mechanized job productivity depends primarily on machines, workers' skills and abilities are not perceived to be principal determinants of task accomplishment. Overly enlarged jobs are not motivating because they require more skills and abilities than workers possess, creating frustra- tion and obstacles to task accomplishment. En- larged jobs with optimum levels of complexity allow effort to be closely related to task accom- plishment, creating a task situation that is chal- lenging but attainable.

Worfeer-paced Control — job enlargement makes it difficult to place workers on a machine- paced production line. Since work modules are completed by workers with different tempera- ments, work habits, and skill and ability levels, production speeds and work methods cannot be completely standardized. The worker-paced pro- duction line is motivational because it satisfies the worker's desire to control the work environ- ment. Workers can develop their own work methods and habits, suitable to their personal- ities, and reflecting their own work rhythms. En- larged jobs organized around the worker-paced production line may help to reduce employee turnover and absenteeism. Motivational Effects of Job Enlargement

Although a number of studies have at-

tempted to measure the effects of new work sys- tems on employee job satisfaction and perform- ance, relatively few have used only one type of work system based on either horizontal or verti- cal job loading. Thus it is difficult to test any per- formance prediction that one work system is su- perior to another in arousing employee motiva- tion. But the following studies help in predicting motivational effects of job enlargement.

Conant and Kilbridge (17), Guest (11), Law- ler (25), Walker (46), and Walker and Guest (47) studied the effects of job enlargement (primarily horizontal job loading) on employee motivation. They concluded that job enlargement is more likely to improve employee satisfaction and product quality and, to a certain extent, to re- duce costs and increase productivity. But a situa- tion may be created in which workers have to ex- ert more energy and effort to produce the same rate of production as before the jobs were en- larged. Enlarged jobs usually involve worker- paced production methods that may reduce pro- duction speed and prevent optimal human movements. Workers may draw more job satis- faction from producing quality products than from producing a large quantity of low quality products. Thus, job enlargement is most likely to (a) have a positive effect on employee satisfac- tion, (b) have a positive influence on the quality of product, and (c) have an effect on productiv- ity. Costs for Enlarging Jobs

Although job enlargement is much simpler to implement than job enrichment, potential users should be aware of its costs. In many in- stances, the existing assembly production lines need to be broken up and restructured into work modules that can be considered as natural and psychologically meaningful work units. Re- designing and balancing production lines is cost- ly. Volvo estimated that a new work system would cost about 10 percent more than a comparable conventional auto plant (1). Workers and super- visors need to be retrained to adjust to new work systems. Outside consultants are usually invited to monitor the implementation process. Many

116 lob Enlargement and Job Enrichment

companies experience drops in productivity dur- ing the initial stage of new work system imple- mentation. Finally, under job enlargement work- ers perform more complicated jobs and may de- mand higher wages.

In summary, a properly enlarged job pos- sesses motivational characteristics which may arouse job satisfaction of rank-and-file employ- ees who are not interested in performing overly demanding jobs. Furthermore, job enlargement is a prerequisite for job enrichment. Although job enlargement incurs some costs, it can be rec- ommended to employers on the basis of human- istic considerations and cost savings attributable to reduced absenteeism, lower turnover, and de- creased product rejects.

Motivational Properties of Job Enrichment

job enrichment, often called "vertical job loading", allows workers to perform managerial functions previously restricted to managerial and supervisory personnel. If founded on enlarged jobs, it allows workers to perform more task com- ponents, and also to have more control over the tasks they perform. Motivating characteristics of job enrichment — including participation, au- tonomy, and responsibility — appeal to employ- ees who strive for the satisfaction of higher-or- der needs such as self-control, self-respect, and self-actualization.

Task Attributes of Job Enrichment

Employee Participation — Employee partici- pation in managerial decisions can influence employee job performance, as well as satisfac- tion. Employees who participate in the decision- making process tend to internalize organization- al decisions and feel personally responsible for carrying them out. Thus, the success or failure of a decision and subsequent action becomes their success or failure (45). But the quality of deci- sions seems to depend on other factors, such as quality and quantity of participants' information and the type of decisions to be made. Decision

quality is enhanced when participants have the necessary information (43) and when partici- pants' goals are congruent with organizational goals. When their goals are not congruent with organizational goals, workers may not find any reason to set high standards and increase pro- ductivity.

Goal Intemalization — Motivation is goal- oriented behavior. If a job enrichment program is to be successful, workers should be involved in the goal-setting process for their work group. According to Likert (27) and Odiorne (35), par- ticipation itself does not guarantee high produc- tivity unless it results in the workers' establish- ment of high performance goals for themselves.

A supportive supervisory climate must also be present if an organization is to achieve high productivity. According to Locke (28), empirical studies showing a positive relationship between participation and high performance have in- volved the establishment of high performance goals by participants. Bryan and Locke (5), La- tham and Baldes (22), Latham and Kinne (23), Latham and Yukl (24), and Ronan, Latham, and Kinne (40) generally support Locke's theory of goal-setting in producing high performance.

Proponents of job enrichment suggest that the goal-setting technique be applied to all lev- els of employees in order to achieve maximum effect on employee motivation (e.g., 15, 34, 37). But implementation of participatory goal-setting systems at lower levels of organizational hier- archy may not be practical because workers at these levels may not be technically and psycho- logically prepared to perform highly demanding managerial jobs. Thus it seems necessary to reex- amine the simplistic notion of goal-setting sys- tems applied to all levels of employees.

Autonomy — Job enrichment programs should go beyond employee participation in op- erational decisions. Employees should be given autonomy and control over the means of achiev- ing organizational goals. They should be allowed to evaluate their own performance, take risks, and learn from their mistakes. When workers are given authority to manage their own jobs, it

Academy of Management Review-January 1977 117

should be unnecessary for managers to exercise close supervision; supervisors can then be avail- able to employees for consultation, advice, guid- ance, and training. When autonomy is working, managers can spend their time planning, trou- ble-shooting, and helping their supervisors. Even the number of supervisory personnel can be re- duced somewhat. But employee autonomy is frequently in conflict with management's desire to have control over, or be informed of, subor- dinates' activities. Managers may delegate au- thority to workers, but they are still responsible for their subordinates' actions. Even if a manager does not mean to interfere with workers, his or her concern for production may lead to frequent review of subordinates' progress. This behavior may make workers feel that they do not really have autonomy in managing their jobs.

Group Management — Autonomy can be granted to employees collectively or individually. Most proponents of job enrichment programs prefer group action over the individualized ap- proach (e.g., 1, 17, 48). The work group defines its task-goals, undertakes its tasks jointly, ap- praises its accomplishments and individual mem- bers' contributions to the group effort, and dis- tributes the outcomes among its members. For example, self-managed work teams at the Gen- eral Foods plant are given collective responsibil- ity for managing day-to-day production prob- lems. Assignments of individual tasks are subject to team consensus, and tasks can be reassigned by the team to accommodate individual differ- ences in skills, capacities, and interests (48).

The group management approach is desir- able for most jobs that require a high degree of interaction among work group members. Man- agers and workers must coordinate their efforts to achieve organizational or group goals. When employee job performances are mutually inter- dependent, it is difficult to identify individual- ized performance standards and accomplish- ments. An individualized performance system can be detrimental to such job situations, lead- ing the employee to pursue personal goals while ignoring joint organizational responsibilities.

Motivational Effects of Job Enrichment

Vroom (45) and Maier (32) indicated that participation in decision making leads to greater acceptance of decisions by workers and thus in- creases employee motivation. But other studies indicate that participation does not necessarily lead to high motivation and productivity unless it results in high performance goals set by the participants themselves (5, 24, 27, 28, 35). Individ- ual and organizational constraints may prevent effective utilization of goal-setting systems, in- cluding workers' technical and psychological readiness to perform demanding jobs, pay, job security, and organizational climate. Further, employees will not set high performance goals unless their jobs have been horizontally enlarged to make their tasks psychologically meaningful. Thus, it is doubtful whether job enrichment alone can have a strong motivational impact on employee behavior. When these two types of work systems are jointly applied under favorable circumstances, job enrichment can exert more influence on employee motivation than can job enlargement because it gives workers more op- portunities to utilize their abilities and exert control over their work environment.

Combined Approach to Job Design

Job enrichment seems to gain motivational power when combined with job enlargement. It is predicted that job satisfaction and productivity will be highest when both job enlargement and job enrichment are jointly applied to redesign- ing work systems. HEW's report Work in America (14) advocated that the work system should in- clude both horizontal and vertical job loadings if it is to have a strong impact on employee satis- faction and job performance. Such a complete work system resulted in a productivity increase from five percent to 40 percent. A number of in- dustrial experiences with the combined ap- proach to job design support such a prediction.

AT&T reported that after it had introduced the new work system into a service representa- tives' office at Southwestern Bell, the absentee- ism rate in the experimental unit was 0.6 percent.

118 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment

compared with 2.5 percent in other groups. The errors per 100 orders were 2.9 as compared with 4.6 in the control group. The nine typists in the group were producing service order pages at a rate one-third higher than the 51 service order typists in the control group (9). At the General Foods plant, people involved in the new work system reported high job satisfaction, reductions in manufacturing costs through fewer quality re- jects, a lower absenteeism rate, and an increase in productivity. On the average, 77 people achieved the production level which was esti- mated to require 110 employees if conventional engineering principles were adopted (48). Roche and MacKinnon (39) and Paul, Robertson, and Herzberg (36) also reported positive results in job satisfaction and performance at Texas Instru- ments and Imperial Chemical (England), respec- tively.

The editor of Organizational Dynamics (1) reported that at Philips (Netherlands), job rede- sign improved employee morale, reduced pro- duction costs by 10 percent, and increased prod- uct quality. Saab-Scania (Sweden) reported that after job redesign there were some improve- ments in employee attitudes, absenteeism, and product quality (1), but no proof of increased productivity as a result of job redesign. Volvo (Sweden) also reported some improvements in absenteeism, turnover, and product quality, but no measurable improvement in production. The general feeling among all these companies is that improved product quality and reduced labor problems (such as absenteeism and turnover) could cover the costs of redesigning the work systems.

Implementation Constraints

Despite considerable enthusiasm generated by job enrichment, many employers find it diffi- cult to implement this concept in their organiza- tions. Luthans and Reif (30) found that out of 125 industrial firms surveyed, only five had made any formal efforts to enrich jobs. Even in these firms only a small portion of employees were affected by the job enrichment programs. For example.

the job enrichment program at Texas Instru- ments, which is considered a pioneer in this field, has involved only about 10 percent of its total work force. Another 25 percent of the surveyed firms have applied these programs to a small por- tion of their employees on an informal basis.

There are a number of reasons why job en- richment is not used as widely as many industrial psychologists would like and why it fails to pro- duce positive results in some companies. First, job enlargement should precede job enrichment to make the job interesting before managerial autonomy is given. Second, employees will not positively, respond to new work systems unless they are reasonably satisfied with lower-order needs, such as economic well-being and affilia- tion. When these needs are not satisfied, em- ployees become preoccupied with satisfying them, and higher-order needs do not emerge as motivators. Third, job enrichment tends to sen- sitize workers to expect satisfaction of higher-or- der needs because they are usually told that the work systems are being redesigned to fulfill these needs. While raising the level of expectation is relatively simple, meeting the raised expectation is more complex, since it involves a time-con- suming effort of orchestrating the divergent goals of individuals, groups, and the organiza- tion into workable terms. Finally, there are sig- nificant differences in workers' responses to job enrichment. In particular, higher-order needs and urban-rural backgrounds of employees moderate the effectiveness of job enrichment (4, 12, 19). Workers who are motivated by lower-or- der needs and urban backgrounds tend to re- spond poorly to job enrichment.

Job Design Strategies

Job design, especially in its combined ap- proach, can have a significant influence on em- ployee motivation because it contains the major motivational components as suggested in instru- mental/expectancy theory of motivation. Job de- sign affects the employee's expectancy (a) that effort leads to task performance (E - P); (b) that

iAcademy of Management Review-January 1977 119

task performance leads to intrinsic as well as ex- trinsic incentive rewards (P - I); and (c) that these incentive rewards have the power of satisfying the person's needs (I - N).

Workers respond to job design differently, reflecting individual differences in perceiving these motivational components, and these dif- ferences often determine the effectiveness of new work systems. For example, not all workers are interested in performing demanding jobs, nor are they all motivated by higher-order need satisfaction. Also, not all organizations are able to supply adequate hygiene factors, such as pay and job security, and have a supportive climate for managerial innovation. Thus, these individual and organizational characteristics should be re- flected in job design.

Individual Differences and Task Difficulty

Job design affects workers' expectancy that effort leads to task performance (E - P). It is nec- essary to design a job to contain an optimal level of task performance difficulty in order to elicit work motivation.

The optimal level of task design or difficulty varies for different individuals. Some can handle demanding jobs effectively and thus are rein- forced by successful accomplishment, while others are not able to perform and become dis- couraged. Hulin (18) and Hulin and Blood (19) indicated an inverted-V relationship between task difficulty and job satisfaction, with the opti- mal level of job satisfaction varying for different workers. Contrary to the view that routinized and repetitive jobs lead to boredom and job dis- satisfaction, some workers find them suitable or even desirable. Hackman and Lawler (12), Hack- man and Oldham (13), and Brief and Aldag (4) also reported that individuals with higher-order need strength generally display stronger rela- tionships between core task attributes (e.g., task variety, task identity, autonomy, and feedback) and job satisfaction than do individuals who are lower in higher-order need strength.

The relationship between task attributes and individual differences is shown in Figure 1. Em-

t Job Satisfaction and Productivity

Professional Personnel

Skilled Workers

Unskilled Workers

Task Difficulty (TDI)

FIGURE 1. Task Difficulty and Individual Difference.

ployees with strong desire for and ability to per- form demanding jobs (professional and manage- rial personnel) will find the highest level of job satisfaction and performance when their jobs are heavily enriched and complex, whereas workers with lower desire for and limited ability to per- form demanding jobs (unskilled and semi- skilled) will find their optimal levels of job satis- faction and productivity when their jobs are rel- atively simple. Most skilled workers then will find their optimal levels of job satisfaction and pro- ductivity when their jobs are moderately en- larged and enriched.

The task difficulty index (TDI), shown in Fig- ure 1, can be derived from the task attributes (task variety, meaningful work module, per- formance feedback, ability utilization, worker- paced control, group interaction, responsibility, and autonomy). The individual readiness index (IRI) is then derived from workers' skill levels and their psychological states. The skill levels meas-

120 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment

ure workers' technical readiness for performing given tasks, while the psychological need states measure their psychological readiness for under- taking the tasks. The inverted-V chart indicated that job satisfaction and performance increase when both TDI and IRI increase, but they de- crease as the gap between TDI and IRI widens. The figure also implies that a worker's readiness (IRI) should be matched with the task difficulty (TDI) to maximize job satisfaction and produc- tivity. Motivational problems arise when the worker is either over-qualified or under-quali- fied for the job.

Effects on Performance-Reward Tie

Job design influences workers' perception of the performance-incentive reward tie (P-l) in several ways. First, workers performing enriched jobs can see a direct relationship between task accomplishment and feelings of achievement, recognition, and growth. If they perform success- fully, they will be immediately reinforced by task accomplishment without going through super- visory evaluation. However, less productive workers will merely be frustrated when they can- not accomplish their assigned demanding jobs. Thus, job enrichment is highly motivational for productive work groups but it can be a liability for unskilled workers.

The E-P tie is closely related to workers' per- ceptions of the P-l tie. When task difficulty is low and every employee can perform the job, all will be rewarded for its completion regardless of ef- fort level. If the task difficulty is too high, an av- erage employee is not able to accomplish the task and will not be rewarded for effort no mat- ter how hard he or she may try. In either case, workers will perceive that their efforts are not related to performance (E-P) and are not re- warded (P-I). This will discourage employees from exerting efforts to accomplish their tasks. But workers will be motivated to perform their tasks when these tasks possess an intermediate degree of performance difficulty because their perceptions of the E-P and P-l ties at this task dif- ficulty level will be highly motivational.

Matching Incentives with Needs A critical task in developing an effective in-

centive-reward system is to match organizational incentives with individual needs (I-N). Workers who strive for satisfaction of existence needs will be motivated by such extrinsic incentives as pay, job security, and working conditions (34), and may easily tolerate or even prefer simplified and routinized jobs. Some workers are primarily mo- tivated by socializing opportunities on their jobs. Reif and Luthans (38) found that unskilled work- ers prefer routinized tasks because these jobs provide them with opportunities to socialize or daydream without undue mental exhaustion and responsibility. Employees with higher-order needs are motivated by such inventives as achievement, recognition, responsibility, and growth opportunity. Thus, job enrichment is recommended to motivate employees with high- er-order needs, while establishing an effective reward system and building a sociable organiza- tional climate are suggested for workers with such maintenance needs as socialization and ex- istence. But a minimum to moderate level of job enlargement can be motivational even for main- tenance seekers because such an enlarged job can be less boring and requires a minimum level of skill and responsibility.

Conclusion Several implications can be drawn from this

discussion for designing work systems. First, job enrichment (vertical job loading) may not be ap- plicable to all employees in an organization. It can have a strong motivational value for employ- ees who prefer challenge in performing de- manding jobs, have abilities to perform, and are motivated to satisfy higher-order needs. It may have little or even a negative effect on workers who prefer lower task difficulty, are unskilled, and are primarily motivated by lower-order needs. Second, job enlargement (horizontal job loading) with a limited degree of job enrichment is recommended for most skilled workers who are reasonably satisfied with lower-order needs and yet who are not ready to undertake highly

Academy of Management Review-January 1977 121

demanding jobs. Finally, job enlargement is more suitable to workers at lower levels of organiza- tional echelons who are primarily motivated by lower-order needs. Enlarged jobs with opportu- nities for socialization may better satisy their

needs. Since no one particular job design is a cure-all managerial remedy, management should carefully study the differences in employees' technical and psychological readiness before any specific job design is implemented.

REFERENCES

1. AMACOM'S Editor. "Job Redesign on the Assembly Line: Farewell to Blue-Collar Blues?" Organizational Dy- namics, Vo\. 2 m73), 5^-67.

2. Atkinson, J. W. An Introduction to Motivation (Prince- ton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1964).

3 Atkinson, J. W., and N. T. Feather. A Theory of Achieve- ment Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1966).

4. Brief, A. P., and R. J. Aldag. "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: A Constructive Replication," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 182-186.

5. Bryan, J. F., and E. A. Locke. "Coal Setting as a Means of Increasing Motivation," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 (1967), 274-277.

6. Chung, K. H., and W. D. Vickery. "Relative Effectiveness and Joint Effects of Three Selected Reinforcements in a Repetitive Task Situation," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 (1976), 114-142.

7. Conant, E. H., and M. D. Kilbridge. " A n Interdisciplinary Analysis of Job Enlargement: Technology, Costs, and Be- havioral Implications," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 18 (1975), 377-395.

8. Duffy, Elizabeth. Activation and Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1962).

9. Ford, R. N. "Job Enrichment Lessons From AT&T," Har- vard Bus/ness Review, Vol. 51 (1973), 96-106.

10. Greller, M. M., and D. M. Herold. "Sources of Feedback: A Preliminary Investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 (1975), 244-256.

11. Cuest, R. H. "Job Enlargement: A Revolution in Job De- sign," Personnel Administration, Vol. 20 (1967), 9-16.

12. Hackman, J. R., and E. E. Lawler. "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 55 (1971), 259-286.

13. Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 159-170.

14. H. E. W. Work in America (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1973).

15. Herzberg, Frederick. " O n e More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?" Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46 (1968), 53-62.

16. Homans, G. C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Formi (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1961).

17. Howell, R. A. " A Fresh Look at Management By Objec- tives," Business Horizons, Vol. 11 (1967), 51-58.

18. Hulin, C. L. "Individual Differences and Job Enrichment — The Case Against General Treatments," in ). R Maher (Ed), New Perspectives in job Enrichment (New York: Van Nostrand, 1971), 162-191.

19. Hulin, C. L., and M. R. Blood. "Job Enlargement, Indi- vidual Differences and Worker Responses," Psychologi- cal Bulletin, Vol. 69 (1968), 41-55.

20. Kahn, R. L. "The Work Module-A Tonic for Lunchpail Lassitude," Psychology Today, Vol. 6 (1973), 35-39, 94-95.

21. Kornhauser, A. W. Mental Health of the Industrial Work- er: A Detroit Study (New York: Wiley, 1%2).

22. Latham, G. P., and J. J Baldes. "The 'Practical Signifi- cance' of Locke's Theory of Goal Setting," journal ol Ap- plied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 122-124.

23. Latham, G. P., and S. B. Kinne. "Improving Job Perform- ance Through Training in Goal Setting," journal of Ap- plied Psychology, Vol. 59 (1974), 187-191.

24. Latham, G. P., and G. A. Yukl. "Assigned Versus Partici- pative Goal Setting with Educated and Uneducated Wood Workers," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 299-302.

25. Lawler, E. E. "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22 (1969), 526-435.

26. Lawler, E. E. Mot(vaf/on in Work Organizations (Monte- rey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1973).

27. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).

28. Locke, E. A. "Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives," Organizational Behavior and Human Per- formance, Vol. 3 (1968), 157-189.

29. Locke, E. A., N. Cartledge, and J. Koeppel. "Motivational Effects of Knowledge of Results: A Goal-Setting Phe- nomenon?" Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 70 (1968), 474- 485.

30. Luthans, F., and W. E. Reif. "Job Enrichment: Long on Theory, Short on Practice," Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 2 (1974), 30-43.

31. Mahone, C. H. "Fear of Failure and Unrealistic Vocation- al Aspiration," journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 60 (1960), 253-261.

32. Maier, N. R. F. Prob/em-So/v/ng Discussions and Confer- ences: Leadership Methods and Skills (New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1963).

122 Job Enlargement and Job Enrichment

33. Morris, J. L. "Propensity for Risk Taking as Determinant of Vocational Choice: An Extension of the Theory of Achievement Motivation," journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3 (1967), 328-335.

34. Myers, M. S. fvery Employee A Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).

35. Odiorne, G S. Managemen(-6y-Ob;ecf/ves (New York: Pitman, 1970).

36. Paul, W. J., K. B. Robertson, and F. Herzberg. "Job En- richment Pays Off," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 47 (1964), 61-78.

37. Raia, A. P. Management By Objectives (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman, 1974).

38. Reif, W. E., and F. Luthans. "Does Job Enrichment Really Pay Off?" California Management Review, Vol. 14 (1972), 30-37.

39. Roche, W. )., and N. L. MacKinnon. "Motivating People With Meaningful Work," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 48 (1970), 97-110.

40. Ronan, W. W., G. P. Latham, and S. B. Kinne. "The Effects of Goal Setting and Supervision on Worker Behavior in an Industrial Situation," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 (1973), 302-307.

41. Scott, W. E. "Activation Theory and Task Design," Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 1 (1966), 3-30.

42. Sirota, D., and A. D. Wolfson. "Pragmatic Approach to People Problems," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 51 (1973), 120-128.

43. Swinth, R. L. "Organizational Joint Problem-Solving," Management Science, Vol. 18 (1971), B68-B79.

44. Vroom, V. H. "Ego-involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 15 (1962), 159-177.

45. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964).

46. Walker, C. R. "The Problem of the Repetitive Job," Har- vard Business Review, Vol. 28 (1950), 54-59.

47. Walker, C. R., and R. H. Guest. The Man on the Assembly Line (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952).

48. Walton, R. E. " H o w to Counter Alienation in the Plant," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50 (1972), 70-81.