ABOSOLUTLEY NO PALAGIRISM!!! Justification Report Part 3

A). Job Enrichment

Job enrichment is the process through which the management motivates self-driven employees by giving them responsibilities/ tasks usually assigned to those higher in the corporate ladder (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

Several companies have utilized this method in a bid to improve employee performance. One of the most formidable common cases for job enrichment is Volvo. The Swedish automobile maker introduced several innovative job enrichment programs in a bid to reduce employee turnover, improve job satisfaction, and reduce absenteeism in the workplace. These enrichment programs included job rotation, providing employee oriented facilities, smaller work groups and the introduction of employee management councils. The result was a 64% increase in individual employee performance resulting in 32% total increased outputs for the company in that financial year alone (Gibson, 1973).

B). Job Enlargement

The Indiana Bell Telephone Company used combined tasks (job enlargement) in the assembly of telephone books. Previously, the book assembly took 21 steps with each step carried out by a different clerk. Now the company wanted each clerk to assemble an entire book. The result was less monotony and a 50% drop in employee turnover.

General Motors was not so successful in implementing job enlargement. The employees felt that the additional tasks were also monotonous and not as challenging as they would have expected. They also felt that they had less rest time because of these other tasks.

Criteria

· Period of Implementation

· Alternative A: Job Enrichment –from the case studies above, job enrichment will take a longer time to implement because it involves providing new access to subordinate employees as well as training them for the higher-level duties and what is expected of them.

· Alternative B: Job Enlargement- this option will take a shorter time of implementation because it is merely an addition of tasks rather than the creation of more complex tasks

· Desirability

· Alternative A: Job Enrichment –this alternative is most desirable because it is challenging to the employee, reduces monotony, and offers the employee the chance to improve on his core competencies. It is also beneficial to the company because it reduces employee turnover and absenteeism.

· Alternative B: Job Enlargement –as seen from the General Motors example, this option continues to contribute to monotony thereby decreasing its desirability among employees.

· Cost

· Alternative A: Job Enrichment- this is the most expensive alternative to implementing as it will include additional training. It can also lead to possible increased remuneration for the workers once they develop the complex skills required. However, it is a cost-saving strategy for the long run since there will be no need to acquire new employees to perform higher-level tasks

· Alternative B: Job Enlargement- inexpensive as it is merely the addition of same level tasks

· Efficiency

· Alternative A: Job Enrichment- As is the case with Volvo, job enrichment helps increase the productivity of the employees by a significant margin.

· Alternative B: Job Enlargement- its efficiency is based on the employees’ perceptions towards additional same-level tasks.

· Practicality

· Alternative A: Job Enrichment – most practicable for our organization as we are aiming to increase intrinsic motivation, and improve performance

· Alternative B: Job Enlargement- least possible as it does not eradicate monotony or increase intrinsic motivation significantly.

Findings and Analysis

Job enrichment is seen as one of the best methods of improving employee satisfaction and reducing turnover. It improves performance substantially leading to greater profits and lower costs for the company. However, it does have its share of obstacles when it comes to implementation. Smith (1981) found that there is a constant tension between improving the welfare of the workers and not increasing the demands on the supervisors. He further stipulates that this pressure creates a version of a zero-sum game where none of the parties can win at the same instant.

Paul, Robertson, and Herzberg (1969) disagree with this hypothesis commenting that the job enrichment of lower level jobs starts a chain reaction and results in the enrichment of the supervisor’s job as well. The authors believe that the premise that job enrichment might negatively influence the director stems from the fear that there is a shortage of responsibilities in the organization. However, new higher-level responsibilities are bred through job enrichment.

Figure 1: Alternatives Analyzed by Criteria

References

Gibson, C.H. (1973). Volvo increases productivity through job enrichment. California Management Review, 15 (4): 64-66

Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance 16, 250-279.

Paul, W.J., Robertson, K.B., Herzberg, F. (1969). Job enrichment pays off. Harvard Business Review March 1969 Issue.

Smith, H.R. (1981). The Uphill Struggle for Job Enrichment. California Management Review, 23(4): 33