Badly designed jobs are actually the cause of far more performance problems than

managers realize. The authors present a way of analyzing job designs to make sure they
encourage the outcomes managers want.
Job Design: Approaches, Outcomes, and Trade-offs
Michael A. Campion Paul W. Thayer
Although the nearly catastrophic Three Mile Island incident was attributed to human error, it is clear that
the poor design of the control room operator's job was the primary cause of the disaster. Operators had to
monitor hundreds of poorly designed displays, controls, alarms, and lights. Because controls and related
gauges were physically separated, operators could not respond quickly and accurately to danger signals.
Emergency procedures were inadequately designed. In brief, the information and control systems for
which the operators were responsible created overwhelming mental demands that quickly overloaded their
capabilities. The operator's job was actually (though inadvertently) designed to be error-prone that is,
designed for disaster.

The initial conclusion, however, was that human beings were entirely at fault. People have a
natural tendency to conclude that the design of a job is a "given," dictated by the technology, and that poor
performance on the job must be the fault of the worker.
In a recent study of job design in the wood-products industry, we found two examples that illustrate
this point. Although our analysis of the jobs quickly pointed to design problems, in each case the supervisor
accepted the job as given and blamed the incumbent for poor performance.
1. A dryer-feeder job in a plywood plant. In this job, the incumbent had to align strips of wood just
before they entered a dryer on a moving belt so that maximum drying coverage would be achieved.
Because dryer coverage was not up to standard, the supervisor concluded that the incumbent was lazy and
negligent and considered filing a written reprimand. However, we found the job to be poorly designed
from a biological perspective. The incumbent had to operate a foot pedal while standing and thus spent
all day with most of her body weight on one foot. She also had to bend over frequently and extend her
arms to adjust the strips of wood, which resulted in biomechanical stresses on the arms, legs, and back.
Everyone hated the job, and it was almost impossible to staff. Despite that, the incumbent was blamed.
2. A puller job in a sawmill. In this job, the incumbents pulled 2-by-4s from a moving belt and
placed them in racks. When production was low, employees were characterized as apathetic, lazy, and
lacking a work ethic. However, the job itself was totally unattractive from a motivational viewpoint: It
provided hardly any feedback and no variety, and it involved no significant skill. The task seemed
unimportant and monotonous a boring, thankless, dull job.
We, as managers, tend to blame the worker rather than the job despite the many attempts to point
out that job design may be the problem. Early in this century, Frederick Taylor and Frank Gilbreth
developed a concept called "scientific management" that stressed specialization of duties, time and
motion study, and work simplification. This approach to job design permitted employers to staff jobs with
almost anyone and still hold down training costs. However, many viewed scientific management as
dehumanizing because it assumed that workers were lazy and dull and that tight controls and manipulation
were required.
Eventually theorists such as R. N. Ford, Frederick Herzberg, Arthur Turner, and Richard Hackman
stressed the desirability of enlarging and/or enriching the job to enhance its motivational potential. They
viewed the worker as creative, self-motivated, and responsive to a stimulating environment.
More recently, specialists have been pointing to the need to minimize the physical costs and
biological risks of work, and they have emphasized occupational safety and health. A related school of
thought is concerned with cognitive and perceptual-motor abilities. It suggests that a human being can
absorb only so much information in a given time span and that a job design must recog nize that limit. The
jobs of the Three Mile Island operator and an air traffic controller are good illustrations of positions that
must be designed with careful attention to the limitations of human perceptual capacities.
 Which job design approach is best? Advocates of each school point only to the strengths or
advantages of their method.
 Can a job that has been designed from a motivational perspective have characteristics that make it
bad from another standpoint?
 If a job is designed well from one perspective, does that mean it cannot be designed well from
another?
 What are the costs and benefits of the various approaches?
 Job enrichment may be the current in approach, but what are the costs of this approach?
 Are the other approaches really so bad?
We tried to answer these questions through a study that attempts to assemble all the available approaches to
job design and then determine which approaches produce which job outcomes.

THE STUDY

We conducted an exhaustive search of the literature and extracted specific "rules" on how to design jobs.
We found rules for everything: equipment, facilities, and environments, as well as job content and
methods. These rules were then analyzed and sorted into distinct groups based on their underlying
theoretical orientation. Four job-design approaches resulted; these approaches then formed the basis for a
job analysis questionnaire.
 Using that questionnaire, we analyzed more than 120 jobs. We also collected information on a
broad spectrum of job outcomes including job satisfaction, absenteeism, training time, staffing difficulty,
physical effort required, injury rates, error rates, job stress, and mental demands.
The technical details of this study are presented in the February 1985 issue of Journal of Applied
Psychology. We found that there are four different approaches to job design and that each approach is
actually geared toward a different set of outcomes. Each approach has its own costs and benefits and no
single approach is best, trade-offs will be required in most practical situations.

Exhibit 1

THE MECHANISTIC JOB-DESIGN APPROACH

1.Job specialization: Is the job highly specialized in terms of purpose and/or activity?
2.Specialization of tools and procedures: Are the tools, procedures, materials, etc. used on this job
highly specialized in terms of purpose?
3.Task simplification: Are the tasks simple and uncomplicated?
4.Single activities: Does the job require the incumbent to do only one task at a time? Does it not
require the incumbent to do multiple activities at one time or in very close succession?
5.Job simplification: Does the job require relatively little skill and training time?
6.Repetition: Does the job require performing the same activity or activities repeatedly?
7.Spare time: Is there very little spare time between activities on this job?
8.Automation: Are many of the activities of this job automated or assisted by automation?

What follows is a description of the content and theoretical orientation of each approach and the
associated positive and negative outcomes of that approach. So that readers may analyze jobs in their
organizations, we have presented sets of questions to determine how well jobs match each of the different
approaches. Answers to these questions will suggest what costs and benefits can be expected from jobs as
they are currently designed, as well as how jobs may be redesigned.
 FOUR APPROACHES TO JOB DESIGN
Mechanistic Job-Design Approach

This approach stems from the scientific-management school of thought, time and motion study, and work
simplification and specialization. Its primary scientific basis is classic industrial engineering. (The term
classic is used because many contemporary writers include a variety of job design approaches under
the label of industrial engineering.)
Exhibit 1 presents the questions one might ask to determine whether a job fits the mechanistic
approach. Jobs high in mechanistic features can be staffed by almost anyone, and training time is
typically very short. Because mental demands are minimal, stress and overload are unlikely. Errors
are less common because mistakes are less likely to occur.
The disadvantages of the mechanistic approach include less satisfied, less motivated
employees and higher absenteeism. Sometimes mechanistic work can lead to health complaints
and injuries caused by the physical wear and the carelessness that can result from highly repetitive and
machine-paced work.
Most low-level factory jobs are designed from a mechanistic perspective. Assembly-line jobs epitomize
this approach because they are analyzed and carefully constructed to maximize productivity and efficiency.
The nuclear power plant operator's job, on the other hand, would get a very low score on the
mechanistic questionnaire because of the complex nature of many of the tasks involved and the
corresponding training requirements. In fact, simplified procedures for nuclear power plant operators have
been established as a result of the Three Mile Island incident.

Exhibit 2
THE MOTIVATIONAL JOB-DESIGN APPROACH

1.Autonomy: Does the job allow freedom, independence, or discretion in work scheduling, sequence,
methods, procedures, quality control, or other decisions?
2.Intrinsic job feedback: Do the work activities themselves provide direct, clear information about the
effectiveness (in terms of quality and quantity) of job performance?
3.Extrinsic job feedback: Do other people in the organization (such as managers and coworkers) provide
information about the effectiveness (in terms of quality and quantity) of job performance?
 4.Social interaction: Does the job provide for positive social interaction (such as teamwork or coworker
assistance)?
5.Task/goal clarity: Are the job duties, requirements, and goals clear and specific?
6.Task variety: Does the job have a variety of duties, tasks, and activities?
7.Task identity: Does the job require completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work? Does it
give the incumbent a chance to do an entire piece of work from beginning to end?
8.Ability/skill-level requirements: Does the job require a high level of knowledge, skills, and
abilities?
9.Ability/skill variety: Does the job require a variety of types of knowledge, skills, and abilities?
10.Task significance: Is the job significant and important compared with other jobs in the
organization?
11.Growth/learning: Does the job allow opportunities for learning and growth in competence and
proficiency?
12.Promotion: Are there opportunities for advancement to higher-level jobs?
13.Achievement: Does the job provide for feelings of achievement and task accomplishment?
14.Participation: Does the job allow participation in work-related decision making?
15.Communication: Does the job provide access to relevant communication channels and
information flows?

16.Pay adequacy: Is the pay for this job adequate compared with the job requirements and pay for
similar jobs?
17.Recognition: Does the job provide acknowledgment and recognition from others?
18.Job security: Do incumbents on this job have a high degree of job security?

Many jobs would get a low score on the mechanistic approach questions simply because of their
inefficient nature. Such jobs include many sales and negotiating positions, which have a less than optimal
probability of success, and jobs that are needed only in emergency situations (such as the job of a fire
fighter). Many office jobs are also poorly designed from a mechanistic point of view. However, the
concepts of specialization and simplification of tasks and skill requirements have been applied to some
office jobs to reduce staffing difficulties and training requirements.
Motivational Job-Design Approach

This approach stems from the work on job enrichment and enlargement and from the major theories of
work motivation and organizational behavior. Its basis is organizational psychology.
Exhibit 2 shows the content of this approach. In addition to taking into account those
characteristics that make jobs meaningful from a task-oriented perspective (such as variety, feedback, and
achievement), this is the only approach that takes into account the social or people-interaction aspects of
job design (including participation, communication, and recognition). Positive responses to the questions
in Exhibit 2 are associated with jobs that have more satisfied, more motivated, and more involved
employees. Absenteeism tends to be lower and job performance higher among employees whose jobs can be
characterized as high in motivational job-design approach. The converse is true for jobs that are low on
this approach.
On the negative side, jobs that match the motivational approach tend to have longer
training times and are more difficult to staff because of their greater mental demands. Furthermore,
given the more stimulating nature of highly motivational jobs, the employees are more prone to
suffer stress and mental overload, and errors are more likely to occur.
Many executive, managerial, and professional jobs would score well from a motivational point
of view. They are satisfying, rewarding, and highly motivating. Many craft and technical jobs would
also score well because of their highly skilled nature. On the down side, all of these jobs require
extensive training and experience, and major errors are a regular possibility.
Jobs low in the motivational elements tend to be those same jobs that received high
scores on the mechanistic approach: low-level factory jobs, laborer jobs, and other unskilled jobs.
They are not particularly satisfying or motivating; however, their training times are very short, and
they can be staffed easily.
From a practical perspective, managers can enhance the meaningfulness of many office,
factory, and service-oriented jobs by applying motivational principles. The positive benefits may
include higher satisfaction and improved performance. But there are limits: The jobs may become
much more expensive to staff, or the incumbents may pay an undue price in job stress or demand
higher wages for more mentally demanding work.
 Exhibit 3
THE BIOLOGICAL JOB-DESIGN APPROACH

1.Strength: Does the job require fairly little muscular strength?

2.Lifting: Does the job require fairly little lifting, and/or is the lifting of very light weights?
3.Endurance: Does the job require fairly little muscular endurance?
4.Seating: Are the seating arrangements on the job adequate (with ample opportunities to sit, comfortable
chairs, good postural support, etc.)?
5.Size differences: Does the workplace allow for all size differences between people in terms of
clearance, reach, eye height, leg room, etc.?
6.Wrist movement: Does the job allow the wrists to remain straight, without excessive movement?
7.Noise: Is the workplace free from excessive noise?
8.Climate: Is the climate at the workplace comfortable in terms of temperature and humidity, and is it
free of excessive dust and fumes?
9.Work breaks: Is there adequate time for work breaks given the demands of the job?
10. Shift work: Does the job not require shift work or excessive overtime?

Biological Job-Design Approach

This approach is derived from the sciences of biomechanics (the study of body move ments), work
physiology, occupational medicine, and anthropometry (the study of body measurements). It is often called
ergonomics, and its main thrust is to minimize the physical costs and biological risks of work. The goal is
to ensure that people's physical capabilities and limitations are not exceeded by the design of their jobs (a
consideration that is frequently ignored).
Not surprisingly, jobs rating high on the biological approach (Exhibit 3) require less physical effort,
result in less physical fatigue, create fewer health complaints, and cause fewer injuries than other jobs.
They may even be associated with lower absenteeism and higher job satisfaction because they are less
physically arduous than other jobs. The biological approach might appear to have no drawbacks
because the biological aspects of jobs are largely unrelated to other aspects of job design. However,
changes in equipment or job environments needed to implement these principles may be prohibitively
expensive. In addition, it is possible to design a job with so few physical demands that the workers become
drowsy or lethargic.
The biological approach has been extensively applied in the redesign of equipment used in physically
demanding jobs so that women can better perform them. For example, ladders and other equipment have been
changed for the telephone installer job, and handles on many assembly tools have been made smaller to better
accommodate the female grasp.
These principles obviously apply to traditionally "heavy" industry jobs that involve difficult physical tasks
and environmental stressors, such as jobs in the coal, steel, oil, forest, and construction industries. But
some considerations are also important to many "lighter" jobs. For example, many light assembly
positions require excessive wrist movements that can eventually lead to a chronic wrist condition. As
another example, seating, anthropometry, and posture are important factors to consider in the design of an
increasingly common office position, the video display terminal operator. In fact, the influence of proper
seating design on long term musculoskeletal health is an important concern for nearly all office jobs.
Exhibit 4
THE PERCEPTUAL/MOTOR JOB-DESIGN APPROACH

1.Lighting: Is the lighting in the workplace adequate and free from glare?
2.Displays: Are the displays, gauges, meters, and computerized equipment used on this job easy to
read and understand?
3.Programs: Are the programs in the computerized equipment for this job easy to learn and use?
4.Other equipment: Is the other equipment (all types) used on this job easy to learn and use?
5.Printed job materials: Are the printed materials used on this job easy to read and interpret?
6.Workplace layout: Is the workplace laid out so that the employee can see and hear well enough to
perform the job?
7.Information input requirements: Is the amount of attention needed to perform this job fairly minimal?
8.Information output requirements: Is the amount of information that the employee must output on
this job, in terms of both action and communication, fairly minimal?
9.Information processing requirements: Is the amount of information that must be processed, in terms of
thinking and problem solving, fairly minimal?
10. Memory requirements: Is the amount of information that must be remembered on this job
fairly minimal?

11. Stress: Is there relatively little stress on this job?

12. Boredom: Are the chances of boredom on this job fairly small?
Perceptual/Motor Job-Design Approach

The main contributors of principles to this approach are the many human-factors engineering guidelines
and the research on skills and how people mentally process information. Its basis, with its emphasis on
perceptual and motor abilities, is experimental psychology.
In contrast to the biological approach, the perceptual/motor job-design approach ensures that people's
mental capabilities and limitations are not exceeded. The two approaches are similar in that they both sug-
gest that job-design principles can extend beyond the content of the job to the equipment and work
environments involved.
The goal of designing jobs around people's perceptual/motor limitations (Exhibit 4) is to
decrease the likelihood of errors and accidents. However, another result is to reduce the general mental
demands of a job. Thus, like the mechanistic approach, the percep tual/motor approach decreases
the chances of mental overload and stress, reduces training times, and improves utilization levels (i.e.,
percentages of workers who can perform the jobs with little or no training).
On the negative side, the perceptual/motor approach may lower satisfaction and motivation
because jobs can be less mentally stimulating.
The nuclear power plant operator's job, previously described, would get a low score on this job-design
approach. The air traffic controller's job would also get a low score because of the amount of information the
controller must attend to and remember and because of the stress of knowing the potentially devastating
consequences of an error. Other jobs that would score low for the same reasons include most jobs that involve
the operation of complex machinery, such as flying a jet aircraft or operating heavy construction vehicles.
Other, less obvious jobs that can tax people's perceptual and motor capabilities include many product-
inspection or equipment-monitoring positions. Not only must much information be taken in and processed in
these jobs, but the vigilance requirements can also be mentally draining.
Jobs that would get a high score on the perceptual/motor questionnaire are best described as not overly
demanding in terms of concentration or attention. These jobs would include many administrative and clerical
or service and custodial positions.
Some of the perceptual/motor elements, such as information processing and memory
requirements, are relevant to nearly all jobs, both in the factory and in the office. No matter what the job,
then, managers should always ask how much information employees must attend to, think about, remember,
and communicate. They should also ask whether these requirements are within the capabilities of the least
capable potential incumbent.
 SOME PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The four job-design questionnaires can measure existing jobs or help managers design new ones. The
questions can be used in a simple checklist fashion to measure quickly the quality of a job's design in terms
of the four approaches. The greater the number of affirmative responses to the questions for one of the
approaches, he better that job is designed in terms of that approach and the more likely it is that the job
will produce the outcomes that approach is intended to maximize.

For example, if you see that employees are not motivated, that job satisfaction is low, that
absenteeism is high, or other similar symptoms, perhaps you should examine the motivational
characteristics of the job's design. If you have difficulty staffing a job, if training times are high, if many
errors are being committed, or if employees are stressed, consider the mechanistic or perceptual/motor
aspects of the job. Likewise, if there is evidence of excessive physical toil and fatigue, look to the
biological approach for potential solutions. The questions in Exhibits 1 through 4 will not only point out
a problem, they will also lead to recommendations for improvement.
These job-design measures can actually be used in at least three different ways. First, they can be
useful as a means of diagnosing organization problems. Only rarely is a job recognized as a potential
problem source; as noted earlier, the most common explanation is that there is a "problem person." Along
with other means of exploring the situation, the job-design questions can be used to determine if any
significant problems exist with the job.
A second use of the job-design questions is in job-redesign projects. They can be used to identify
jobs that need redesign, to indicate what redesign is needed, and to evaluate the jobs after they have been
changed.
A third use is in developing new facilities or work organizations. The questions can be used as
guidelines for providing job design recommendations during the design phase, as a checklist for
evaluating equipment and job descriptions during the development phase, and as an evaluation instrument
once the system is developed. The questions may have their greatest positive impact in the area of
development, since they can lead to proper job design from the outset and help a manager avoid problems
later.
Up to this point, we have not explicitly recognized the role of the incumbent in the job-
design process. This is because most jobs exist before the employee arrives on the scene, and they
will probably be filled by more than one person over the course of time. Initial job designs must be
completed under the assumption that the job will be occupied by an average person. However, with
time the incumbent can significantly influence the design of the job by seeking out additional tasks,
ignoring tasks, focusing on the interesting activities, changing the physical environment to reduce
discomfort (through homemade padding or extra lighting, for example), or developing a job aid (such
as a chart of commonly used numbers). The incumbent is actually an expert who can provide critical
job-design information and recommendations. In fact, the incumbent is the primary source of
information for the questions in Exhibits 1 through 4. We feel incumbents should be consulted much
more often than they usually are.

Mechanistic
A FEW CAVEATS
Job-design approaches have many similarities and differences, and no one approach can satisfy all
criteria. Exhibit 5summarizes the pros and cons of each approach. The perceptual/motor and
mechanistic approaches tend to produce the same types of outcomes, both positive and negative. The
biological approach is quite independent; it produces no outcomes in common with the others.
However, some distinct conflicts do exist. The motivational approach produces outcomes that are almost
opposite to those produced by the mechanistic and perceptual/ motor approaches. This opposition occurs
because the mechanistic and perceptual/motor perspectives strive to design jobs that are simple, easy to
learn, safe, and reliable, with minimal mental demands on workers. The motivational approach
encourages more complicated, challenging, and rewarding jobs. Furthermore, the motivational approach is
the only perspective that encompasses the social aspects of job design.

Exhibit 5

SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
FROM THE JOB-DESIGN APPROACHES

Job-Design
Approach Positive Outcomes Negative Outcomes

Mechanistic Decreased training time Lower job satisfaction

Higher utilization levels Lower motivation
Lower likelihood of error Higher absenteeism
Less chance of mental overload and stress

Motivational Higher job satisfaction Increased training time

Higher motivation Lower utilization levels
 Greater job involvement Greater likelihood of error
Higher job performance Greater chance of mental overload and stress
Lower absenteeism

Biological Less physical effort Higher financial costs because of changes in

Less physical fatigue equipment or job environment
Fewer health complaints
Fewer medical incidents
Lower absenteeism
Higher job satisfaction

Perceptual/motor Lower likelihood of error Lower job satisfaction

Lower likelihood of accidents Lower Motivation
Less chance of mental overload and stress
Lower training time
Higher utilization levels
Regardless of these conflicts, jobs can often be improved in one area and still maintain their high
scores in other areas. Sometimes, however, trade-offs will be necessary. Fortunately, physical job demands,
best understood in terms of the biological job-design approach, are independent of mental job demands.
Employers can reduce physical demands without sacrificing the mental quality of a job's design. The
cost of equipment may, however, be a significant deterrent to implementation, and designing jobs with
too little physical activity may also be unpleasant for the worker.
Exhibit 6

MENTAL-DEMANDS CONTINUUM

Motivational Mechanistic and Perceptual/Motor

Designed Jobs Designed Jobs
High satisfaction • Low training times
High motivation • High utilization levels
Low absenteeism • Low likelihood of error
(Individual outcomes) (Organizational outcomes)
 On the other hand, major trade-offs may be necessary in the mental demands of jobs. A mental-
demands continuum, such as that depicted in Exhibit 6, illustrates the potential trade-offs. At one
end of the continuum are jobs high in motivational features. They are mentally demanding and they
attempt to maximize such individual outcomes as job satisfaction, motivation, and lower
absenteeism. At the other end are jobs designed in terms of mechanistic and perceptual/mo tor
principles. They are less mentally demanding and attempt to maximize such organizational
outcomes as higher utilization levels, lower training times, and lower likelihood of errors.
Most of the trade-offs in job design will involve this mental-demands dimension. Which
trade-offs will be made depends on which types of outcomes a manager wants to m a x i m i z e ; t h e
c h o i c e d e p e n d s o n o n e ' s values. Our research indicates that managers most often make
compromises between an individual-outcomes orientation and an organization-outcomes
orientation. (Some readers may have suspected this already.) In other words, practitioners of the
motivational approach are obviously concerned with organizational goals since they are interested in
enhancing job performance, improving quality, and reducing costly absenteeism through job redesign.
However, enhancing a job's motivational aspects may result in more errors, more stress, or more staffing
difficulties. On the other hand, simplifying the job to enhance efficiency may make it less meaningful for
the employees.
Since job redesign may have unintended consequences, all job-design approaches must be
considered. Knowing all the approaches and their outcomes may help employers make more intelligent
job-design decisions.

A FINAL WORD

Too often, jobs are developed haphazardly; they become arbitrary groupings of activities that our machines
cannot do. Little consideration is given to the mental and physical capabilities, limitations, and needs
of the workers who must perform them. If any consideration is given, it is likely to be from a partisan
perspective. Because of the academic discipline bases of the various job-design approaches, each ap-
proach tends to be owned by a different staff specialty or profession within an organization. Industrial
engineers are typically located in manufacturing departments, ergonomists in industrial hygiene or
safety departments, human-factors engineers in research and development labs, and organizational
psychologists in personnel or human resources departments.
Universities have more cross- fertilization, but they do not have complete integration.
Industrial engineers will usually learn the mechanistic approach and perhaps be exposed to the
biological. Ergonomics and human-factors engineering are frequently combined in the same program,
and students will study both the biological and perceptual/motor approaches, but the program will
be primarily aligned with either the industrial engineering or the psychology department. Thus, students
will get additional exposure to either the mechanistic or motivational approach, but probably not to
both. Psychologists usually receive training only in the motivational approach, with perhaps
some exposure to the perceptual/motor.
This compartmentalization in both industry and academe tends to work against the
interdisciplinary perspective we encourage. We hope that exposure to all approaches will bring about
an awareness of people's multidimensional needs. Through the use of tools such as the questions in
Exhibits 1 through 4, we can ensure that all critical considerations are recognized in the design of jobs.