Organization Development
finishit
JOBROTATION.pdf
27
P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 5 ( 2 ) P P . 2 7 – 4 1 © 2012 International Society for Performance Improvement Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21118
Implications of Job Rotation Literature for Performance Improvement Practitioners
Scott Casad
T he emergence of a complex, decentralized,
and global economy with dynamic organiza-
tional workplaces has driven leaders and man-
agers to consider performance improvement and job
enrichment strategies that extend beyond traditional
classroom training, tenure promotions, and senior-
ity perks (Daft, 2009; Friedman, 2007). Among the
diverse human resource management and develop-
ment practices, job rotations have theoretical, empir-
ical, and practical signifi cance to the ever-evolving
work environments of organizations. Job rotations
aff ord the opportunity to design work systems lever-
aging individual desires for growth and organiza-
tional needs for optimizing the workforce. A concept
and practice with a long history, job rotations off er
the opportunity for improved employee satisfaction,
increased skill development, and greater understand-
ing of employees’ strengths; however, the realized
benefi ts must be balanced with the potential negative
impacts and challenges of rotating employees within
an organization.
Organizational Context
As Cosgel and Miceli (1998) noted, job rotations date back as far as the industrial revolution when
developing industries rotated apprentices through
various jobs, functions, and duties in preparation for
Job rotations have existed as a means of developing individual knowledge and skills since the indus- trial revolution, and in today’s dynamic global workplace, they a? ord orga- nizations an opportunity to man- age changing psychological work contracts and employee desires for self-managed careers. Through the systematic mining of psychology, busi- ness, management, and educational databases, this literature review pro- vides a summary of job rotation prac- tices, individual and organizational beneB ts, likely costs associated with job rotations, and implications for practitioners. Findings indicate that while employees seek learning and marketability over job security and sta- bility, organizations strive to maintain continuity and internal growth and development of their workforce. Job rotations can appease both individuals and organizations through enhanced knowledge and skills, facilitation of greater job satisfaction, and identiB ca- tion of individual strengths for optimal organizational performance. However, these beneB ts come at a price to the individual and the organization in the form of increased work/life conD ict, potentially higher training costs, and possible lower work unit morale. Con- clusions are presented on the practical implications and recommendations for implementing job rotations and integrating the practice into perfor- mance improvement models.
28 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
becoming a journeyman and eventual master. 1 is practice was known
as migration due to the continual relocation of individuals until they
developed enough skill to hold a permanent job. Job rotations experi-
enced a rebirth in the 1950s when Japanese fi rms adopted the practice to
rebuild their nation and economy following World War II. 1 e strategy
gained signifi cant recognition during the 1980s when the United States
began integrating quality management practices into auto manufacturing
(Deming, 1986). Most recently, the focus on job rotation has shifted to
further defi ning the concept and identifying the context and impacts of
its implementation.
De� nition and Framework Over the past two decades, organizational psychologists and busi-
ness management experts have conceptualized a variety of defi nitions
and frameworks for the application of job rotations. Wexley and Latham
(1991) visualized the practice as a sequence of lateral assignments across
organizational boundaries with the intent of inducing meaningful job
content in a variety of ways. In their comprehensive review, Earney and
Martins (2009) off ered similar defi nitions of job rotations: “the lateral
transfers of employees between jobs in an organization” (Campion,
Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994, p. 1518), “the planned movement of people
between jobs over a period of time and for one or more of a number
of diff erent purposes” (Bennett, 2003, p. 7), and “a policy of periodi-
cally switching the work assignments of employees” (Arya, 2004, p. 400).
Campion et al.’s contribution, the seminal contribution to job rotations,
provides the most widely accepted framework for job rotation.
To diff erentiate job rotations from other job enrichment practices,
the intent of the assignments must be considered. First, individuals rotat-
ing to a new job are not expected to remain in the job permanently
(Campion et al., 1994). 1 e move occurs without increased compensation
and therefore should not be confused with a promotion, which serves
vastly diff erent purposes than job rotations do, specifi cally increased
responsibilities for increased pay and benefi ts. Job rotations serve the
sole purpose of developing skills, providing job variety, and identifying
individual strengths. 1 ey can be a key factor in determining promotions,
but they are not promotions, and vice versa.
Second, rotated individuals do not return to their previous job (Burke &
Moore, 2000). 1 is distinction prevents job rotations from being confused
with cross-training. In both the private and public sectors, government
and industry embrace cross-training for professional and organizational
development and often label it ”job rotation”; however, consistent with
the literature, the acquisition of new competencies through cross-training
is not a job rotation. During cross-training, the workforce is diversifi ed
through developing new skills outside primary duties, thereby allowing the
organization increased fl exibility to reassign personnel temporarily during
periods of high demand or reduced manpower. Following cross-training
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 29
or temporary reassignment, individuals return to their original, primary
job; in contrast, in a job rotation, individuals remain in their new assign-
ment and continue to apply their newly acquired skills to the current job.
1 ird, job rotations occur in two ways: individuals can rotate cross-
functionally or within function (Bennett, 2003). A cross-functional rota-
tion moves employees across organizational boundaries to diff erent jobs
throughout the organization (e.g., from manufacturing to human relations).
In the second type of rotation, an individual remains within the same
organizational function (e.g., manufacturing) but assumes a new primary
duty (e.g., from bumper assembly to engine assembly). 1 ese moves are
lateral and off er no increased responsibilities or compensation. 1 e scope
of the work may increase, but the degree of decision-making responsibil-
ity or organizational authority does not change.
Shifting Organizations 1 e new global economy has driven organizations to expand
their approaches to managing internal and external environments.
Simultaneously, psychological contracts at work have also evolved.
Whereas workers in the past demanded job security from their employers
in exchange for performance and productivity, employees now value learn-
ing and marketability over stability (Rousseau, 1989). 1 is is consistent with
Arthur and Rousseau’s (1996) boundaryless career. As a result of evolving
psychological contracts, Sullivan (1999) surmised there has been decreased
job security (Batt, 1996; Beckman, 1996; Scott, O’Shaughnessy, & Cappelli,
1996), decreased employee loyalty (Goff ee & Scase, 1992; Murrell, Frieze, &
Olson, 1996), and increased worker cynicism (Kanter & Mirvis, 1989).
As a result of these changes, organizations have embraced and
adopted philosophies targeted at creating learning organizations.
Originally conceived in the 1970s (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996), learning
organizations seek to maintain a competitive edge through the constant
development and advancement of its people and through a continuous
process of transformation across all levels, from individuals to teams
to work units to the organization (Senge, 1990). Consistent with learn-
ing network theory (Poell, 2000; Van der Krogt, 1998) and job-based
experiential learning (Noe & Ford, 1992), the emphasis is on formal and
informal, and structured and unstructured learning embedded within the
work environment, so employees can move along in their own develop-
ment and career management while simultaneously delivering value and
productivity to the organization (De Vos, Dewettinck, & Buyens, 2009;
Poell, van Dam, & van den Berg, 2004). 1 e benefi ts of harmonizing
individual and organizational developmental and career needs include
improved satisfaction, commitment, motivation, involvement, and exec-
utive development (see Campion et al., 1994, for a full review). Further
support for integrating learning and work for optimal outcomes comes
from Quionones, Ford, and Teachout’s (2001) meta-analysis of learned
work experience, which found a positive and signifi cant correlation with
performance.
30 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
To address these dynamic demands, organizations have turned to job
rotations as a means for leveraging both individual and organizational
development opportunities. Data on job rotation use among organiza-
tions are diffi cult to obtain due to concerns about competitive advan-
tage and employee retention strategies; however, Eriksson and Ortega
(2006) found the most frequent use within manufacturing, transporta-
tion, and communications industries and increasing use as the number
of employees increased (10% with 21 to 50 employees, and 37% for 500
or more employees). In their investigation of senior executive develop-
ment, Suutari and Viitala (2008) observed that 18% of managers studied
participated in job rotations, and from among the numerous professional
development opportunities, job rotations ranked third in total eff ective-
ness behind international assignments and personal career planning.
Interestingly, those same managers ranked formal training as the least
eff ective despite being the most common developmental opportunity.
Considering the specifi c practices of organizations, Campion et al.’s
(1994) seminal work found that in general, job rotations were most often
provided for those in management or executive positions, and on aver-
age, employees with less tenure and higher performance engaged in job
rotations, while there was no signifi cant correlation with education level.
Rotations typically occurred once every two years, with executives having
more time between rotations than managers did. Overall, job rotations
had a positive relationship to salary and promotions.
Finally, it is worth noting that growing concerns with workplace
equality and corporate social responsibility have entered the discussion
on the need or desire for job rotations. Executives have recognized that
job rotations can be a means for promoting, communicating, and diff using
an organization’s culture (Campion et al., 1994). Concerns with busting
the glass ceiling (Eriksson & Ortega, 2006) and addressing social, racial,
and economical inequalities in the workplace (Kalev, 2009), often a prod-
uct of the organizational culture, can be attended to through increased
cross-functional communication and boundary spanning job rotations.
As Muller (2010) noted, rotating managers and executives through the
organization may eliminate organizational confi rmation bias (e.g., group-
think) by bringing fresh and innovative perspectives to various functional
and operational units. 1 ese perspectives align well with the learning
organization strategy and are consistent with the three primary reasons
for implementing job rotations: skill development, employee satisfaction,
and strengths identifi cation.
Job Rotation Triad
Job rotations developed primarily as a means for developing skills of
the workforce and are still used for this purpose, but as organizational
psychology moved from technology-driven workplaces to sociotechnical
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 31
designs centered on human needs and desires (Morgeson & Campion,
2003), a second purpose emerged to address employee motivation. Most
recently, advances in strength-based management and positive psy-
chology (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003; Luthans, 2002; Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) have highlighted the third purpose of identify-
ing and matching individuals’ unique characteristics with organizational
needs.
Skill Development From the earliest rotations of apprentices in migration practices of
the industrial revolution, organizations have recognized that exposing
individuals to a variety of jobs, tasks, skills, and knowledge better pre-
pares them for future duties and responsibilities. Not surprisingly, among
government agencies, private service companies, and private manu-
facturing companies, the most frequent and strongest criterion for job
rotation is development of knowledge, skills, and abilities (Jaturanonda,
Nanthavanij, & Chongphaisal, 2006). 1 is breadth aff ords an organiza-
tion a degree of workforce fl exibility, but requires a more holistic and
systems thinking approach to ensure that the selection of personnel
and investment of resources provide a return on investment worthy of the
commitment. For this reason, most job rotation focus is on leadership and
management development. Specifi cally, evidence supports that individu-
als receive more business and administrative knowledge than technical
knowledge from a job rotation, despite their preconceived expectations
to receive more technical development (Campion et al., 1994). 1 e qual-
ity of the job assignment positively correlates with the quality of end-state
competencies (Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009) and further sup- ports the need for organizations to evaluate carefully who and what job
rotations occur. If implementing a job rotation program, organizations
may reap the greatest benefi ts if they are in need of customer service,
self-confi dent employees, or transfer of best practice (Earney & Martins,
2009), and there is some speculation that job rotations can improve inno-
vativeness (Cosgel & Miceli, 1998).
Employee Satisfaction Although it seemed intuitive that job rotations would improve
employees’ skills, it was not until after the Hawthorne studies in the mid-
20th century that organizations began to explore employee motivation
as a critical element of the workplace environment. 1 is quickly led to
motivation research in the areas of career management, career identity,
corporate strategy, plateaued employees, job socialization, and manager
development (see Campion et al., 1994, for a review of the literature).
At the core of this evidence is the underlying concept that job rota-
tions alleviate boredom and fatigue by introducing variety and special-
ization to individuals. Learning a new skill or exploring new behaviors
32 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
allows employees to feel they have a reason for work-
ing and can continue to add value to the organization
after potentially years of doing the same repetitive
job. Arguably, rotating through assignments devel-
ops individuals’ fresh perspective as they see and
experience the workload and workplace conditions
of others in the organization, which helps develop
empathy and apathy (Farrant, 1987). As an outcome
of increased motivation due to job rotations, employ-
ees reported greater career aff ect, career success, stimulation, and per-
sonal growth (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Campion et al., 1994).
Furthermore, and important to predictions of organizational commit-
ment and turnover intention, job rotations increased employee job satis-
faction (Gurbuz, 2009; Hsieh & Chao, 2004). Nevertheless, some evidence
exists to dismiss the entire motivation aspect of job rotations (Eriksson &
Ortega, 2006), and others have supported increased dissatisfaction
and lower motivation due to additional stress from job–person misfi ts
and having to learn a new set of duties and responsibilities (Earney &
Martins, 2009).
Strengths Identi� cation While the discussion of job–person fi t has existed since the late 1970s
(Jovanovic, 1979; Kristof, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Miller, 1984), it
has been only in the past decade that job rotations have been discussed
as a means of identifying individuals’ strengths and matching them with
optimal jobs within an organization. During times of economic hardship,
such as the current global recession, organizations must work harder to
optimize every competitive advantage, including leveraging the strengths
of their human capital to meet organizational needs. Some have argued
this is the most critical aspect of job rotations (Erikkson & Ortega, 2006).
Frase-Blunt (2001) asserted that job rotations allow an organization to
assess new employee desires and motivations and socialize employees
to organizational culture and work climates, which supports evidence
that organizations recruiting from more external than internal sources
are more likely to use job rotations as a strategy to overcome a new
employee’s lack of knowledge of the organization and the organiza-
tion’s lack of knowledge about the new hire (Erikkson & Ortega, 2006).
1 is understanding of individuals allows them to be placed in new roles
where they can build social capital and practice new managerial identities
(Bennett, 2003; Ibarra, 1999), which are key elements of strength-based
assignments and crucial to successful succession planning (Hicks, 2000).
1 is perspective on job rotations also aligns with the growing dis-
cipline of positive psychology. Positive psychology emerged in the
late 1990s in response to nearly 50 years of psychology predominantly
focused on the diagnosis and treatment of ailments, which neglected
the psychological elements of fulfi llment, vitality, energy, and strength.
Evidence supports that individuals
receive more business and administrative
knowledge than technical knowledge
from a job rotation.
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 33
1 e discipline seeks to balance traditional work in treating the ill and
distressed by illuminating strengths representing the best in life and incor-
porating them into support for human fulfi llment and fl ourishing (Fowler,
Seligman, & Koocher, 1999; Gillham & Seligman, 1999; Peterson & Seligman,
2003; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Within the workplace, positive
psychology has emerged through positive organizational scholarship (POS)
(Cameron et al., 2003; Ko & Donaldson, 2011) and positive organizational
behavior (POB) (Luthans, 2002; Luthans & Church, 2002; Luthans & Youssef,
2007). Using job rotations to identify the best in individuals would benefi t
POBs associated with strength-based practice (Clifton & Harter, 2003);
positive leadership including authentic (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa,
2004), transformational (Walumbwa, Avolio, & Zhu, 2008), ethical
(Brown & Trevino, 2006), and spiritual (Pandey & Gupta, 2008) leader-
ship; organizational virtuousness (Cameron, Bright, & Caza, 2004); and
fl ow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
Negative Consequences
1 e benefi ts of skill development, employee motivation, and strength
identifi cation can come at a cost to organizations. Although the goal is
improved performance and increased output, job rotations have demon-
strated negative consequences associated with decreases in productivity
due to negative employee perceptions, lost knowledge, poor person–job
fi t, and workplace inequalities.
Employee Perceptions In their infl uential study, Campion et al. (1994) not only identifi ed
the positive outcomes of implementing job rotations, but also uncovered
negative perceptions and impacts that resulted from moving employees
laterally through the organization. Primarily, job rotations resulted in
perceived additional work and cost for units that were losing and receiv-
ing a newly rotated employee. For those losing an employee, the vacated
position meant a smaller workforce but with the same work demands,
and once the opening was fi lled with a new employee, there was further
burden and cost to train and socialize the replacement. Similarly, a unit
receiving a rotated employee had to integrate the individual into exist-
ing organizational and social circles and adapt to any new policies and
procedures implemented by the new arrival, which was perceived as add-
ing work and stress to existing duties and responsibilities. Ultimately, as
Campion and his colleagues discovered, these shifting demands and asso-
ciated turnover costs led to decreased productivity and dissatisfaction.
Lost Knowledge Today’s global, information-driven economy demands precise
knowledge and execution to maintain a competitive advantage; however,
34 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
organizations with high voluntary and involuntary turnover rates within
and between work units lose knowledge, thereby hindering their abil-
ity to compete (Parise, Cross, & Davenport, 2006). Job rotations can fi ll
critical job vacancies, but they also contribute to the turnover dilemma
by removing individuals who possess the critical knowledge. As Parise
et al. noted, it is not only the loss of technical expertise, but also the inter-
nal and external organizational connections developed through social
and professional networking. 1 ey recognized that these “central connec-
tors” play a strong role in maintaining corporate knowledge and indoc-
trinating new employees, while “brokers” serve to maintain relationships
between numerous central connectors and external “peripheral players.”
1 e loss of central connectors and brokers to job rotations substan-
tially diminishes the knowledge and production of a work unit. As an
example, passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandated the rota-
tion of audit partners as a means of reducing accounting fraud; however,
as Sanders, Steward, and Bridges (2009) noted, the regulatory edict for
rotations contributes to a loss of organization-specifi c knowledge, which
potentially jeopardizes high-quality audits, compromises auditor judg-
ment, and allows greater inconsistencies. In addition, Hsieh and Chao
(2004) found that job specialization within high-technology industries
related to higher professional effi cacy and reduced employee burnout,
which is contrary to many commonly held beliefs regarding the benefi ts
of broad skill development from job rotations. 1 e continuous advance-
ments in technology and shortening of product and service life cycles
will likely continue to challenge the value of job rotations for knowledge
development and management.
Poor Person–Job Fit Inherent within the practice of job rotations is an underlying assump-
tion that rotated individuals are suited to and desire their new assignment.
Sanders et al. (2009) cautioned that person–job fi t must be considered
prior to rotation; otherwise, the motivational benefi ts expected from the
job rotation may in fact never materialize if the individual is incapable of
performing the new duties. 1 e classic representation is the Peter princi-
ple (Peter & Hull, 1969), which posits that individuals will continue to be
given new assignments as a reward or motivation for good work until they
reach a job for which they are not competent and therefore reach their
level of incompetence. 1 ese individuals often remain in these positions of
incompetence and slowly lose the self-effi cacy that motivated them to take
the rotation. In addition to potential negative eff ects on individual self-
effi cacy, organizations also suff er ineffi ciencies due to reduced employee
motivation and performance (Nafziger, 2011).
Workplace Inequality 1 ere has been a consistent voice of concern that job rotations cre-
ate inequality and injustices in the workplace. In considering the early
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 35
impacts of computer technologies and associated work practices related
to job rotations, Shaiken, Herzenberg, and Kuhn (1986) expressed appre-
hension that “current shop-fl oor reorganization often intensifi es work
and reduces autonomy on the job” (p. 168).
Campion et al.’s (1994) fi ndings support these early speculations
regarding the potential negative impacts on those who remain behind
following a job rotation and those who have to adjust to a newly reported
colleague. More recently, this position has been expanded to explore
how job rotations infl uence the division of labor, distribution of power,
and the allocation of incentives and rewards (Shin, 2009). 1 e argument
places job rotations as a detriment to individuals’ organizational power.
Arguably, employees who are frequently rotated have a limited ability
to develop expert power through specialized knowledge and skills and to
develop referent power by remaining in one location long enough
to establish and develop meaningful relationships and networks. Without
organizational power, broadly skilled and motivated employees from job
rotations potentially have limited impact on an organization’s eff ective-
ness and productivity.
1 ere is also substantial support for the position that job rotations cor-
relate with employee wage inequalities. Shin (2009) speculated, “Job rota-
tion programs might intensify work, erode workers’ autonomy and, as a
result, widen the earnings dispersion” (p. 234). While most of the research
has been limited to manufacturing industries, studies found that employees
in nonmanagerial positions involved in job rotations had lower wages than
those who did not participate, and the salaries of those in management did
not show any signifi cant relationship to job rotations (Osterman, 2000;
Shin, 2009). In their review of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Survey
of Employer-Provided Training, Handel and Gittleman (2004) did not fi nd
a signifi cant relationship between job rotation and wages when consid-
ering all occupations; however, when they limited the work to produc-
tion and service industries, they found a signifi cant negative relationship.
Interestingly, Osterman’s (2006) comparison of high-performance work
organization practices, which included job rotations, showed a signifi cant
and positive eff ect on wages for teams, quality circles, and total quality
management but a signifi cant negative association for job rotations. In sup-
port of this disparity, Nafziger (2011) demonstrated that job rotations used
as motivating work assignments resulted in lower organizational effi ciency
and lower wages; specifi cally, motivated individuals seeking rotation to a
new job do not require as high a monetary incentive as someone who is
enticed into the job by the prospect of greater fi nancial compensation.
Performance Improvement Implications
1 e breadth of knowledge regarding job rotations supports their
value and worth to organizations and human performance technologists.
Job rotations fi t well within four of the six conditions of performance in
36 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
Gilbert’s (1978) behavior engineering model. Within the work environ- ment, job rotations can create nonmonetary incentives through opportu-
nities for growth and advancement that would not otherwise be available
for plateaued employees. 1 ese opportunities enhance career manage-
ment, succession planning, and employee retention, which support many
organizations’ human capital strategic plans. For individuals, job rotations
develop skills and abilities (e.g., knowledge), help to identify and optimize
an individual’s strengths (e.g., capacity), and infl uence employees’ will-
ingness to work (e.g., motives). Together, the impact and interaction of
these infl uences at multiple levels of the organization are consistent with
Gilbert’s diff usion of eff ect and support the potential value of job rota-
tions as a performance improvement intervention.
1 e challenge is for practitioners to integrate these fi ndings into
practical and executable strategies. Rummler and Brache (1990) off ered
the multilevel approach of focusing on the work, worker, and workplace.
Looking fi rst at the worker, a decision must be made on who should par-
ticipate in a job rotation program. Campion and Berger (1990) suggest
that job rotations are a good fi t for any employee needing job enrichment
without expanding his or her scope of responsibility or compensating this
person for a promotion. Others have also indicated job rotations would
be appropriate for managers, high-potential or fast-track employees, gen-
eralists, early-career professionals, plateaued employees, and manufac-
turing personnel (see Burke & Moore, 2000, for a summary). Coetzer and
Perry (2008) also suggested that job rotation practices may be appropriate
for small businesses that do not have the budget or capacity for formal
training programs but may seek to weave informal training through job
rotations into their organizational design.
Second, when considering the work, organizations must seek a bal-
ance among meeting the needs of the organization, the desires of individ-
uals, and the cost or negative impacts of rotating employees. Job rotations
can provide a highly coveted means to career self-management, which
has become more prevalent as work psychological contracts have shifted
from job stability to job enrichment and marketability (Rousseau, 1989;
Sullivan, 1999). 1 ese balancing concerns become more complicated as
the complexity of job rotations increases with the seniority of the assign-
ment. As De Vos et al. (2009) identifi ed, increasing career self-management
increases individuals’ expectations that the organization will provide
them with career management support through job assignments and
opportunities for diversifi cation. 1 is balance must extend beyond the
workplace to include employees’ work/life expectations, because often
the frequency and demands of job rotations can create confl ict and stress,
which are detrimental to individuals and organizations (Suutari & Viitala,
2008). In addition, the potential exists that units losing an employee to a
job rotation will experience costs and negative impacts (Campion et al.,
1994). As Burke and Moore (2000) concluded, and consistent with human
performance technology principles, the perceived fairness of job rotation
procedures and policies must include environmental and personal factors
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 37
to evaluate the impact on individuals and the organization. Units may
experience lower morale and individuals may have less satisfaction and
motivation when an employee leaves or the workload increases by the
vacancy. Organizationally, costs increase when new employees have to be
trained to fi ll vacancies or when rotated employees revise work fl ows or
policies in their new assignment.
Finally in the workplace, practitioners must continue to take a sys-
tems perspective when addressing performance issues with individuals
and within organizations. Job rotations are not the panacea to employee
skill or motivation problems. Factors infl uencing the success of job rota-
tions may include business industry or sector, rewards and salary poli-
cies, training programs and opportunities, mentor or coach availability,
and performance appraisals. Because job rotations are primarily an indi-
vidual performance intervention, Cosgel and Miceli (1998) emphasized
that employees must be able and willing to share their ideas and goals
as well as be incentivized by the organization to express their desires
for professional development, growth, and career management. 1 is
requires the organization to develop and sustain a positive and sup-
portive workplace climate that values employees’ initiative and drive to
succeed (Hall, 2010).
Conclusion
Empirical evidence supports the practice of job rotations for devel-
oping individual and organizational capacities. 1 rough rotating assign-
ments, individuals can improve their competencies, experience positive
aff ect for their job, and develop an understanding of their strengths for
future jobs and promotions. Similarly, organizations gain fl exibility in
their workforce, potential for increased innovation and culture building,
and crucial information about individuals’ strongest attributes for succes-
sion planning. As organizations embrace, implement, and improve job
rotation practices, they must seek an equilibrium between the organiza-
tional and individual costs of frequently changing jobs and the positive
near- and far-term benefi ts.
References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., & Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005). Career success in a boundary-
less career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 177–202. doi:10.1002 /job.290
Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (1996). A career lexicon for the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 28–39.
38 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
Arya, A. (2004). Using job rotation to extract employee information. Journal of Law, Eco- nomics and Organization, 20(2), 400–414.
Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory building for veritable sustained performance. Unpublished manuscript, Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
Batt, R. (1996). From bureaucracy to enterprise? In P. Osterman (Ed.), Broken ladders (pp. 55–80). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Beckman, S.L. (1996). Evolution of management roles in a networked organization. In P. Osterman (Ed.), Broken ladders (pp. 155–184). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, B. (2003). Job rotation. Development and Learning in Organizations, 17(4), 7–9. Brown, M.E., & Trevino, L.K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. Burke, L.A., & Moore, J.E. (2000). The reverberating e? ects of job rotation: A theoretical
exploration of nonrotaters’ fairness perceptions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(2), 127–152. doi:10.1016/s1053–4822(99)00047–9
Cameron, K.S., Bright, D., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organiza- tional virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790.
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foun- dations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Campion, M.A., & Berger, C.J. (1990). Conceptual integration and empirical test of job design and compensation relationships. Personnel Psychology, 43, 525–554.
Campion, M.A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M.J. (1994). Career-related antecedents and outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1518–1542.
Clifton, D.O., & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing in strength. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111–121). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Coetzer, A., & Perry, M. (2008). Factors inD uencing employee learning in small businesses. Education and Training, 50(8–9), 648–660. doi:10.1108/ 00400910810917037
Cosgel, M.M., & Miceli, T.J. (1998). On job rotation. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article�1325&context�econ _wpapers&sei-redir�1#search�%22Job%20Rotation%22
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Daft, R.L. (2009). Organization theory and design. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. De Vos, A., Dewettinck, K., & Buyens, D. (2009). The professional career on the right track:
A study on the interaction between career self-management and organizational career management in explaining employee outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 55–80. doi:10.1080/13594320801966257
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MIT.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P.E., Russell, J.E.A., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Understanding managerial devel- opment: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 731–743.
Earney, S., & Martins, A. (2009). Job rotation at Cardi? University Library Service: A pilot study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 41(4), 213–226.
Eriksson, T., & Ortega, J. (2006). The adoption of job rotation: Testing the theories. Indus- trial and Labor Relations Review, 59(4), 653–666.
Farrant, A.W. (1987). Job rotation is important. Supervision, 49(8), 14–16. Fowler, R.D., Seligman, M.E.P., & Koocher, G.P. (1999). The APA 1998 annual report. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 54(8), 537–568. doi:10.1037/0003–066x.54.8.537 Frase-Blunt, M. (2001). Ready, set, rotate! HR Magazine, 46(10), 46–53. Friedman, T.L. (2007). The world is : at: A brief history of the twenty-; rst century. New York,
NY: Picador.
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 39
Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gillham, J.E., & Seligman, M.E.P. (1999). Footsteps on the road to a positive psychology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37(7), 163–173.
Go? ee, R., & Scase, R. (1992). Organizational change and the corporate career: The restructuring of managers’ job aspirations. Human Relations, 45, 363–385.
Gurbuz, S. (2009). The e? ect of high performance HR practices on employees’ job sat- isfaction. Journal of the School of Business Administration, Istanbul University, 38(2), 110–123.
Hall, L.W. (2010). All change: Job rotations as a workplace learning tool in the Flinders Univer- sity Library Graduate Trainee Librarian Program. Paper presented at the annual con- ference of the IFLA World Library and Information Congress, Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.iD a.org/B les/hq/papers/iD a76/128-hall-en.pdf
Handel, M.J., & Gittleman, M. (2004). Is there a wage payo? to innovative work practices? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 43(1), 67–97.
Hicks, S. (2000). Succession planning. Training and Development, 54(3), 79–80. Hsieh, A.T., & Chao, H.Y. (2004). A reassessment of the relationship between job spe-
cialization, job rotation and job burnout: Example of Taiwan’s high-technology industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1108–1123. doi:10.1080/09585190410001677331
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in profes- sional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 764–791.
Jaturanonda, C., Nanthavanij, S., & Chongphaisal, P. (2006). A survey study on weights of decision criteria for job rotation in Thailand: Comparison between public and private sectors. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(10), 1834– 1851. doi:10.1080/09585190600965324
Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Political Econ- omy, 87(6), 972–990.
Kalev, A. (2009). Cracking the glass cages? Restructuring and ascriptive inequality at work. American Journal of Sociology, 114(6), 1591–1643.
Kanter, D.L., & Mirvis, P.H. (1989). The cynical Americans. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ko, I., & Donaldson, S.I. (2011). Applied positive organizational psychology: The state
of the science and practice. In S.I. Donaldson, M. Csikszentmihalyi, & J. Nakamura (Eds.), Applied positive psychology: Improving everyday life, health, schools, work, and society (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kristof, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ B t at work: A meta analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor B t. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., & Church, A.H. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths [and executive commentary]. Academy of Man- agement Executive, 16(1), 57–75.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–349. doi:10.1177/0149206307300814
Miller, R. (1984). Job matching and occupational choice. Journal of Political Economy, 92(6), 1086–1120.
Morgeson, F.P., & Campion, M.A. (2003). Work design. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psy- chology (pp. 423–452). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Muller, D. (2010). On horns and halos: Con; rmation bias and job rotation. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Bonn Graduate School of Economics, Bonn, Germany. Retrieved from https://134.245.92.14/dspace/bitstream/10419/38813/1 /62331696X.pdf
Murrell, A.J., Frieze, I.H., & Olson, J.E. (1996). Mobility strategies and career outcomes: A longitudinal study of MBAs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 324–335.
40 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly
Nafziger, J. (2011). Motivational job assignments. Economica, 78, 676–696. doi:10.1111 /j.1468–0335.2010.00865.x
Noe, R.A., & Ford, J.K. (1992). Emerging issues and new directions for training research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 10, 345–394.
Osterman, P. (2000). Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends in di? usion and e? ects on employee welfare. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53(2), 179–196.
Osterman, P. (2006). The wage e? ects of high performance work organization in manu- facturing. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 59(2), 187–204.
Pandey, A., & Gupta, R.K. (2008). Spirituality in management. Global Business Review, 9(1), 65–83.
Parise, S., Cross, R., & Davenport, T.H. (2006). Strategies for preventing a knowledge-loss crisis. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4), 31–38.
Peter, L.J., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter principle: Why things always go wrong. New York, NY: Morrow.
Peterson, C.M., & Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Positive organizational studies: Lessons learned from positive psychology. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Posi- tive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 14–32). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Poell, R.F. (2000). Learning-project structures in di? erent work types: An empirical analy- sis. Human Resource Development International, 3(2), 179–193.
Poell, R.F., van Dam, K., & van den Berg, P.T. (2004). Organising learning in work contexts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 529–540. doi:10.1111/j.1464 –0597.2004.00186.x
Quinones, M.A., Ford, K.J., & Teachout, M.S. (2001). The relationship between work experi- ence and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Mesa, AZ: Air Force Research Laboratory Human E? ectiveness Directorate. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD�ADA393140&Location�U2&doc�Get TRDoc.pdf
Rousseau, D. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121–139.
Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1990). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sanders, C.B., Steward, M.D., & Bridges, S. (2009). Facilitating knowledge transfer during SOX-mandated audit partner rotation. Business Horizons, 52(6), 573–582.
Scott, E.D., O’Shaughnessy, K.D., & Cappelli, P. (1996). Management jobs in the insurance industry. In P. Osterman (Ed.), Broken ladders (pp. 126–154). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi:10.1037/0003–066x.55.1.5
Senge, P.M. (1990). The ; fth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaiken, H., Herzenberg, S., & Kuhn, S. (1986). The work process under more D exible production. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 25(2), 167–183.
Shin, T. (2009). Earnings inequality within organizations. Social Science Research, 38(1), 225–238.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25(3), 457–484.
Suutari, V., & Viitala, R. (2008). Management development of senior execu- tives: Methods and their e? ectiveness. Personnel Review, 37(4), 375–392. doi:10.1108/00483480810877561
Van der Krogt, F.J. (1998). Learning network theory: The tension between learning sys- tems and work systems in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9, 157–178.
Volume 25, Number 2 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 41
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its inD uence on individual job performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 793–825.
Wexley, K.N., & Latham, G.P. (1991). Development and training human resources in orga- nizations. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
SCOTT CASAD
Scott Casad, a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Coast Guard, is a
performance consultant for the Coast Guard and a doctoral student at
Old Dominion University. His research interests include positive organi-
zational behaviors and performance improvement.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of Performance Improvement Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
